Loading case…

ISCR 13-01303.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2015) · CASE

ISCR Case 13-01303.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-01303.a1

Jan 29, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by Kiran Joshi, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of unfulfilled tax obligations. The applicant failed to file timely Federal or state income tax returns for the tax years 2009 through 2012. This failure raised concerns regarding the applicant's reliability and judgment, which are essential for access to classified information.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, specifically citing the applicant's inability to provide corroborating evidence for claims that the tax debts had been resolved. Furthermore, the board noted that the applicant's decision to prioritize other debts over tax obligations demonstrated poor judgment.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The lack of verifiable resolution for the tax issues and the demonstrated poor financial judgment ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFailure to Meet Financial Obligations

Key rule quoted

“A person with a history of failing to meet his or her tax obligations may be said not to have demonstrated the high degree of judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.”
ISCR Case No. 12-05053

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 30, 2014
Decision dateJan 29, 2015

Cite for

Failure to Meet Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroboration in Claims Regarding Financial Responsibility
Judgment and Reliability Concerns Related to Tax Compliance

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider evidence of his efforts to resolve tax debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider record evidence concerning his efforts to resolve his tax debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was sustainable on the record, as the Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with tax obligations, which raises questions about his reliability and judgment.

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)
Jean E. Smallin
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: A person with a history of failing to meet tax obligations may be said not have demonstrated the high degree of judgment and reliability required for access to classified information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 13-01303.a1 DATE: 01/29/2015 DATE: January 29, 2015 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 13-01303

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Kiran Joshi, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 30, 2013, 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 October 30, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal brief as contending that the Judge failed to consider record evidence concerning his efforts to resolve his tax debts. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact In essence, the Judge found that Applicant did not file timely Federal or state income tax returns for tax years 2009 through 2012. He was experiencing other financial problems, such as mortgage debts, money owed to a homeowner’s association, and other difficulties. He assigned these debts a higher priority than he did his tax obligations. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant contended that his Federal taxes had been paid and that he was in the process of resolving his debt to the state. Despite language in the File of Relevant Material that corroboration of such claims would be beneficial, Applicant did not provide a response. The Judge also found that it is unclear whether Applicant has filed his taxes for 2013. She reopened the record to permit the parties to submit documentation clarifying the issues. Neither did so. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted that Applicant had paid some of his debts, such as the one to the homeowner’s association. However, she noted that Applicant had not corroborated his claims to have paid his Federal tax debts and to be addressing his state tax obligation. She also stated that without knowing whether he has filed for tax year 2013, she cannot be assured that Applicant can be counted on to comply with the law in future years. She stated that a knowing failure to comply with legal obligations “is antithetical to the good judgment that must be required of those persons entrusted with the Nation’s secrets.” Decision at 8.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s submission mentions his efforts to resolve his delinquent Federal tax debts. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014). He refers to actions taken after the close of the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29 (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “Failure . . . to . . . meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18. A person who has a history of failing to meet his or her tax obligations “may be said not to have demonstrated the high degree of judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.” ISCR Case No. 12-05053 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2014). “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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board