CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02962.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02962.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02962.a1

Apr 2, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The primary concern was a federal tax lien totaling $26,672, which remained outstanding.

The judge noted that the applicant provided inconsistent statements regarding his debts, which raised significant credibility concerns. Furthermore, the applicant failed to present any evidence confirming that the Internal Revenue Service had accepted his offer to settle the tax debt.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's explanations did not adequately mitigate the financial concerns, emphasizing the importance of financial responsibility for national security. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedAug 8, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 15, 2015
Decision dateApr 2, 2015

Cite For

Evaluation of Inconsistent Statements Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Determinations
Deference to Judge's Credibility Determinations on Appeal

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 contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the evaluation of the applicant's credibility and claims of mitigation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — 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 evaluation of the applicant's credibility was reasonable and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s evaluation of his credibility, and hence his claims of mitigation are unreasonable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-02962.a1 DATE: 04/02/2015 DATE: April 2, 2015 In Re: ---------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-02962

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 August 8, 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 January 15, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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 Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor for whom he has worked since March 2014. He has never previously held a clearance. In the mid-2000s, Applicant became owner of a business that had three employees. In 2008, due to the economic downturn, his business slowed, and, three years later, it closed. He has experienced unemployment off and on between 2011 and the start of his current job; moreover, he and his wife divorced in 2011. Applicant’s SOR alleged several delinquent debts, including Federal tax obligations. The Judge found that many of these debts were resolved. He also found that some of the tax allegations were merely repeats of others in the SOR. However, one allegation addressed a Federal tax lien filed in 2011 for the amount of $26,672. Applicant made inconsistent statements about this debt. In his security clearance application he stated that he had hired a tax lawyer and that the debt had been resolved. In his clearance interview, he stated that his tax liens had been resolved and that the IRS had forgiven a large portion of his debt. Applicant submitted an Installment Agreement Request for tax years 2008 through 2012, offering to pay $200 a month until his debt was extinguished. He provided no evidence that the IRS had accepted this offer. Applicant’s annual income is between $60,000 and $70,000, depending on the amount of overtime he works. He stated that he has no other delinquent debts. He enjoys a good reputation for his work ethic and his dedication. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved all but one of the SOR allegations in Applicant’s favor. For the remaining one, the tax lien, he noted that Applicant had experienced unemployment, a divorce, and the harmful effects of the recession, which were beyond his control. He found, however, that this tax problem was due to Applicant’s having failed to allocate a sufficient portion of his income to paying his tax. He noted that there is no evidence that the IRS has accepted Applicant’s offer of settlement. In the whole-person analysis, he cited to Applicant’s favorable evidence. However, he stated that Applicant’s inconsistent statements about his tax debt were “troubling” and that his explanations for these statements were not convincing. Decision at 8.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has provided some further explanation for his inconsistent statements. However, Applicant’s Appeal Brief is not sufficient to show that the Judge’s evaluation of his credibility was unreasonable. See ISCR Case No. 11-11959 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 15, 2013) (The Appeal Board gives deference to a Judge’s credibility determination unless it is unreasonable or contradicted by other evidence.) Applicant’s brief refers to matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board