CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01122.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01122.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01122.a1

Sep 3, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A retired military member in his fifties, holding a master's degree, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from a history of unresolved financial issues, specifically a failure to file tax returns and delinquent tax payments.

Although the applicant subsequently filed all necessary returns and paid the owed taxes, the appeal board upheld the denial. The board determined that the applicant's actions demonstrated a significant pattern of procrastination and irresponsible behavior regarding tax obligations.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that this pattern reflected unreliability and poor judgment, which negatively impacted the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information. The disqualifying conditions of Guideline F, paragraph 20, were raised, and while mitigating conditions under paragraph 21 were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the established pattern of irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant resolved the alleged tax deficiencies by filing returns and paying delinquent taxes.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 2, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 7, 2021
Decision dateSep 3, 2021Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Evaluation of Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Past Financial Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Resolved Financial Issues in Security Clearance Determinations

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 the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge properly considered the applicant's financial history and the circumstances surrounding it.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's conclusion regarding the applicant's financial irresponsibility was sustainable and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process.

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 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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: As the Board has stated in the past, even if an applicant has resolved the alleged financial problems, a Judge may still consider the circumstances related to those problems in evaluating eligibility to access classified information. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant acted irresponsibly in resolving his financial problems, which also reflects negatively on his security clearance eligibility, is sustainable. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-01122.a1 DATE: 09/03/2021 DATE: September 3, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-01122

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

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 2, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 7, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in his fifties, has retired from the military, has a master’s degree, and works for a defense contractor. The SOR alleged that he failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013-2018 and that he owed the Federal Government delinquent taxes for 2014, 2016, and 2017. He attributed his tax filing deficiencies to not having documentation substantiating his deductions for 2013 and 2014. He provided documentation showing he filed all of the alleged income tax returns in April 2020. He has also paid the delinquent tax liability. “Applicant’s conduct established a long pattern of procrastination, delay, irresponsible behavior, and violations of law that the Federal government takes very seriously. Applicant did not act reasonably or responsibly until April 2020. His inaction for so long reflects a pattern of unreliability, untrustworthiness, and poor judgment. Accordingly, Applicant does not meet the requirements to access classified information.” [Decision at 5.]

DISCUSSION

In his brief, Applicant contends that, even though the Judge made findings of fact that he satisfied his Federal and state tax requirements, she did not consider those facts in her decision- making process. A plain reading of the Judge’s decision does not support Applicant’s assertion. The Judge noted in her analysis that Applicant had resolved the alleged tax deficiencies. Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00110 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 2020). As the Board has stated in the past, even if an applicant has resolved the alleged financial problems, a Judge may still consider the circumstances related to those problems in evaluating eligibility to access classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02246 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2017). The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant acted irresponsibly in resolving his financial problems, which also reflects negatively on his security clearance eligibility, is sustainable. In his brief, Applicant argues that Judge did not carefully consider the evidence. He highlights, for example, that he paid his tax liability, that it was not the result of irresponsible

spending, that he had no intent to evade taxes, that he disclosed his tax filing deficiencies on his security clearance application, and that he does not live beyond his means. His arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief fails 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 this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the 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 the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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