Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 04-11768.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Jul 22, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to failure to file federal and state tax returns for multiple years. The appeal board upheld the adverse decision, concluding that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for mitigation, affirming that granting clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2007 and state tax returns for 2006 and 2007.
  • The applicant's federal return for 2004 and state tax returns for 2004 and 2005 were filed late, in 2008.
  • The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • AG ¶ 20 Failure to file tax returnsraised

Key rule quoted

“It is clearly not consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2008-07-22
Answer filed
Hearing held
2009-04-23
Decision date
2009-07-22

Cite for

  • Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
  • Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Considerations
  • National Security Interests in 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

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on the applicant's failure to file federal and state tax returns. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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

Full decision

Open original PDF

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

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to file federal and state tax returns raised Guideline F security concerns. Matters which Applicant submitted in his behalf were not sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 04-11768.a1 DATE: 07/22/2009 DATE: July 22, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 04-11768

Appearances

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 22, 2008, DOHA 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 hearing. On April 23, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had not filed federal income tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2007 and that he had not filed state tax returns for 2006 or 2007. She also found that his federal return for 2004 and his state tax returns for 2004 and 2005 were not filed until 2008. The Judge considered the matters Applicant submitted in his case for mitigation but concluded that he had failed to meet his burden of persuasion. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge has articulated a rational explanation for the adverse decision. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s decision that “it is clearly not consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 9. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”).

Order

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board