CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 13-00081.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date2/20/2014
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 13-00081.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 13-00081.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00081.a1

Feb 20, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 50-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The primary issues stemmed from the applicant's financial irresponsibility, specifically a failure to file federal income tax returns for multiple years and an outstanding debt of approximately $16,445 to the IRS.

The applicant admitted to laziness as the reason for not filing tax returns and only negotiated a repayment plan for the IRS debt after it became a security concern. Further, the applicant's gambling habits, including spending $50 weekly on lottery tickets, were cited as evidence of poor financial judgment.

Despite some favorable findings, the judge determined that the applicant's passive and indifferent attitude toward financial obligations, particularly prioritizing gambling over tax responsibilities, was a significant disqualifying factor. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 24raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's repayment plan was deemed insufficient given his financial history.
AG ¶ 22notedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedJul 1, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 27, 2013
Decision dateFeb 20, 2014

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Unresolved Tax Liabilities Under Guideline F
Impact of Gambling Habits on Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Hearings

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 concerns under multiple guidelines, including financial considerations. The applicant claimed due process violations and that the Judge's decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline JGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed he was denied due process during the hearing.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on substantial evidence supporting the findings of fact and the Judge's analysis of the applicant's financial irresponsibility and due process claims.

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
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: The record does not support Applicant’s denial of due process claim. At the hearing Applicant submitted exhibits which were admitted into the record. The judge then left the record open for Applicant to submit further documentation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 13-00081.a1 DATE: 02/20/2014 DATE: February 20, 2014 In Re: ---------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 13-00081

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 July 1, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On November 27, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant was denied due process and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines H, J, and E are not at issue in this appeal. 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 is a 50-year-old employee of a Federal contractor. He has worked for his current employer since 1982 and has held a security clearance since 1985. When he applied to renew his clearance in the mid-2000s, he failed to respond to DOHA interrogatories, resulting in a denial of his clearance. Applicant has assumed responsibility for taking care of his elderly mother and, for a time, his father. Applicant failed to file a Federal income tax return for 2003, stating in his security clearance application that this failure was due to laziness. He did not file any Federal or state tax returns until 2012. As of the close of the record, Applicant owed the IRS about $16,445. He also owed $2,970 to his state, but these tax debts were satisfied through a garnishment of his wages. Applicant negotiated a repayment plan with the IRS in 2012. Under this plan, he is required to pay $100 a month. He estimates that these payments, plus any tax refunds that might arise, will enable him to pay off his debts in four years. Applicant stated that he could afford to pay more but that he likes to have extra money available. He spends about $50 a week on lottery tickets. He has not sought or received financial counseling. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance. His supervisors believe him to be responsible and conscientious. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his tax liability. He stated that Applicant appears to have contacted the IRS only after his debt became a security concern. He cited to evidence that Applicant had ignored his obligation to file returns for many years and that Applicant is repaying his delinquent tax at a rate below his ability to pay. The Judge stated that Applicant “has placed a higher priority on buying lottery tickets than on paying his taxes.” Decision at 10. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted the high opinion in which Applicant’s duty performance is held. However, the Judge characterized Applicant’s attitude toward his obligations as “passive,” citing to his failure to have responded to interrogatories and his failure to have filed Federal and state tax returns.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has raised an issue of due process. Specifically, he claims that his hearing was taking more time than originally anticipated, the Judge and Department Counsel conferring about notifying participants in the next case of the possible delay. Applicant stated that, as a consequence, he felt pressured and did not think through his testimony as thoroughly as he should have. Applicant contends that this haste resulted in his presenting a false picture of the priority that he attached to purchasing lottery tickets. We have examined the totality of the record evidence. Applicant offered several documents, all of which were admitted into the record. In addition, the Judge left the record open to enable Applicant to submit further evidence, which he did. During the hearing, Applicant testified at length about all of his security-significant conduct. Neither the Judge nor Department Counsel attempted to curtail this testimony. Although the Judge did note that the upcoming hearing might be slightly delayed due to the length of Applicant’s hearing, he did not state or intimate that Applicant should rest his case or hurry it up in the interest of time management. There is no support in the record for the proposition that Applicant was denied his right under the Directive to present evidence in his own behalf. See Directive ¶ 4.3.4. Although Applicant may regret comments about his purchase of lottery tickets, this testimony was voluntarily given and does not appear in any way to have been the result of undue pressure. Applicant was not denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-01470 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 5, 2012). Applicant contends that the Judge extended too much weight to his testimony about his purchase of lottery tickets. We note that the Judge commented on this matter in his analysis. However, the Judge also relied in large measure on testimony provided by Applicant that (1) his debt to the IRS was twice the amount alleged in the SOR, (2) he had owed back taxes to the state that were satisfied through garnishment, and (3) he had failed to file tax returns for his Federal and state taxes for many years. The Judge also relied on evidence that Applicant had failed to respond to DOHA interrogatories during the adjudication of a prior clearance application. The Judge interpreted this evidence as demonstrating Applicant’s indifference to fulfilling his responsibilities. This was not alleged in the SOR. However, the Judge stated that he would consider it for its relevance to the issues of mitigation, etc., which was appropriate. Tr. at 120. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13664 at 5, n. 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 15, 2013). Given the totality of the record evidence, we cannot say that the Judge extended undue weight to Applicant’s lottery ticket purchases or, had that evidence not been presented, that he would have decided the case differently. Applicant’s purchase of these tickets while owing a substantial debt to the IRS was a matter that was proper for the Judge to address. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed this evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09989 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2013). 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D, Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board