A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-03096
Appeal BoardDecided May 4, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial primarily due to significant financial issues under Guideline F, including substantial delinquent federal and state taxes. Although the judge found in favor of the applicant on some allegations under Guideline E, the ongoing tax debts and failure to file timely returns led to the denial being upheld on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ongoing delinquent federal tax debts exceeding $200,000 and state tax debts of about $1,300.
- The applicant failed to timely file federal tax returns for multiple years, which raised security concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 16 Personal Conductraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsapplied
- AG ¶ 17 Personal Conductrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-11-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-03-14
- Decision date
- 2023-05-04 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Impact of Ongoing Tax Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Limitations of Appeal Process Regarding Harmful Error Assertions
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not claim any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 19-03096
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: May 4, 2023
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 November 22, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision⸺security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 14, 2023, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged twelve federal tax concerns, including that Applicant failed to timely file returns for tax years 2011 and 2014 through 2018; that he carried a delinquent tax balance in the approximate amount of $317,000 for tax years 2008 through 2011, 2016, and 2017; that the 2008, 2009, and 2010 balances were reduced to a lien in 2013 and the 2011 balance was reduced to a lien in 2016; that another lien was entered against him in 2010 for about $5,400; and that he previously owed delinquent balances of about $20,000 for tax year 2014 and about $52,000 for tax year 2015, which were not paid until 2016 and 2017, respectively. The SOR also alleged two state tax concerns, including a previously delinquent balance of about $3,000 that was resolved through payments, and an outstanding state tax lien entered against Applicant in 2019 for about $1,300. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant committed fraud in preparation
of his 2008 through 2010 federal tax returns and that, as amended, he deliberately failed to disclose certain alleged tax problems in his February 2020 security clearance application. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on all Guideline E allegations and six Guideline F allegations, but against him for his failure to timely file federal returns for tax years 2011 and 2014 through 2018 and the remaining Guideline F allegations, which represented over $200,000 in ongoing delinquent federal tax debt for years 2009, 2011, 2016, and 2017, and about $1,300 in ongoing state tax debt. On appeal, Applicant does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, he states that he may have not explained himself correctly at hearing regarding the SOR concerns and requests an opportunity to clarify his position. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such harmful error, and therefore the Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board