CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00341 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00341denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00341

Nov 15, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial issues. The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years and accrued a federal tax debt exceeding $22,000. Additionally, the applicant was delinquent on other debts totaling over $17,000.

The original decision cited Disqualifying Conditions F1 and F2, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations and an unwillingness to resolve them. The applicant's appeal argued that the initial denial was arbitrary or capricious, but the judges found these arguments insufficient.

Ultimately, the appeal was unsuccessful, as the judges determined there was no harmful error in the original decision. The applicant did not demonstrate that the security concerns related to his financial irresponsibility had been mitigated, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1appliedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F2appliedDelinquent Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 11, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 31, 2021
Decision dateNov 15, 2021

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standards for Appellate Review of Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he had made efforts to resolve his financial issues and had held a clearance for over forty-five years without incident. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge allegedly miscounted the number of payments made towards a charged-off account.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge allegedly misinterpreted evidence regarding the filing of the 2017 Federal income tax return.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that any alleged errors were harmless, not affecting the overall outcome of the case.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------ )

ISCR Case No. 20-00341

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant highlights his efforts to resolve his financial problems. He argues the facts show that he is willing and able to satisfy his financial obligations. He also emphasizes, for example, that he experienced conditions beyond his control contributing to his financial problems and he has held a security clearance for over forty-five years without incident. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to demonstrate the Judge reached conclusions that were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00341.a1 DATE: 11/15/2021 Date: November 15, 2021

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 11, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 31, 2021, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR contains six Guideline F allegations. Applicant admitted all of the allegations in responding the SOR. The Judge found against him on four of them. These alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013-2018; that he had a delinquent Federal tax debt of over $22,000 for those years; and that he was delinquent on two other debts totaling over $17,000. In his appeal brief, Applicant appears to take issue with some of the Judge’s findings of fact. For example, the Judge found Applicant made one payment towards a charged-off account (SOR ¶ 1.c), while Applicant states he made two payments. It appears one purported payment is evidenced by a handwritten annotation on Applicant’s Exhibit F. He also claims that, contrary to the Judge’s finding, he provided a document showing he filed his 2017 Federal income tax return before the record closed. An IRS document is attached to his SOR Answer that addresses tax years 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. This documents notes the IRS had not received Applicant’s Federal tax returns for 2015 and 2016; which can be reasonably interpreted to mean the IRS did receive his 2017 tax return. Any error that may have occurred was harmless, however, because it does not undermine the Judge’s overall conclusion that Applicant had failed to mitigate the alleged security concerns. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020) (an error is harmless if it did not likely affect the outcome of the case). In his appeal brief, Applicant highlights his efforts to resolve his financial problems. He argues the facts show that he is willing and able to satisfy his financial obligations. He also emphasizes, for example, that he experienced conditions beyond his control contributing to his financial problems and he has held a security clearance for over forty-five years without incident. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to demonstrate the Judge reached conclusions that were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.

518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board