CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-12537.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-12537.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-12537.a1

Feb 11, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant tax debts. The applicant owed approximately $40,000 in unpaid taxes spanning multiple years. This included taxes from 2014, which became due after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued.

The judges determined that the applicant's financial habits demonstrated a consistent failure to pay taxes in full. While the applicant presented claims of mitigating circumstances, these were deemed insufficient to overcome the findings regarding his financial irresponsibility.

The appeal board affirmed the adverse decision, emphasizing the critical importance of financial responsibility in security clearance evaluations. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), with Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(c) considered but not applied to reverse the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of a repayment plan and resolution of other debts did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns.

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 issuedOct 17, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 21, 2015
Decision dateFeb 11, 2016

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Tax Debts
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Habits

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. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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: Applicant’s concern regarding the malfunction of video-teleconference equipment is overcome by the Judge’s express statement that he did not consider those pages of the transcript. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-12537.a1 DATE: 02/11/2016 DATE: February 11, 2016 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-12537

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 October 17, 2014, 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 hearing. On November 21, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal. Applicant has been continuously employed since 2004 and has held a clearance since 2008. He owes the IRS about $40,000 for unpaid taxes from tax years 2005 through 2012 and for 2014.1 Applicant attributed his tax problems to his having spent funds on a wedding rather than his taxes, as well as to inadequate withholding. Over the past several years Applicant has entered into a number of installment agreements with the IRS. When he is unable to pay, he contacts the IRS and negotiates a new agreement. Applicant has resolved other debts alleged in the SOR. He has about $700 in discretionary income each month. His budget does not show any payments to the IRS. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cleared Applicant of all SOR debts except those pertaining to his delinquent taxes. He noted that Applicant has been fully employed for many years but has consistently failed to pay his taxes in full. The Judge noted that Applicant did not pay his 2014 taxes, which would have become due after the receipt of the SOR. The Judge concluded that not even the possible loss of a security clearance could motivate Applicant to change his financial habits.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that he has resolved other SOR debts. He also points to his latest repayment plan that, he argues, will enable him to resolve his tax delinquencies. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is it 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. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2015). Applicant requests an opportunity to present us with additional information about his budget, payments to the IRS, and resolution of other debts. His brief also refers to matters from outside the record. We are not able to consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant notes that the attorney who represented him at the hearing had requested the Judge not to consider several pages of the transcript due to a malfunction with the video-teleconference equipment. The Judge stated that he did not consider these pages. Decision at 2, note 6. Therefore, any technical problem that may have occurred did not impair Applicant’s receipt of due process. The Judge examined the relevant data 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The SOR alleged tax debts up through tax year 2011. The Judge stated that he was considering the non-alleged debts only in evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation and the whole-person factors. Decision at 3, note 7.