CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02329.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02329.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02329.a1

Nov 18, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor, employed since 2012, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, primarily due to unresolved state tax liens. The applicant asserted efforts to resolve these debts, but the judge determined there was insufficient corroborating evidence to support these claims.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide proof that the state tax liens had been discharged. This lack of resolution and supporting documentation led the judge to conclude that the applicant demonstrated a lack of good judgment and reliability.

While the applicant raised several mitigating conditions (AG ¶ 21(a), (b), (c), (d)), the disqualifying conditions (AG ¶ 20) ultimately prevailed. The judge found that the applicant's failure to meet legal financial obligations raised significant concerns regarding the reliability and judgment required for access to classified information, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's tax issues were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's misunderstanding of tax obligations was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant did not provide evidence of effective counseling or resolution efforts.
AG ¶ 21(d)rejectedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve the IssuesThe applicant did not present a reasonable plan or evidence of progress in resolving the tax liens.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 3, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 15, 2016
Decision dateNov 18, 2016

Cite For

Insufficient Corroboration of Claims Regarding Financial Obligations
Impact of Unresolved Tax Issues on Security Clearance
Judicial Consideration of Mitigating Factors in Financial Cases

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 brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider evidence of his efforts to resolve tax liens. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — 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 contends that the Judge failed to consider mitigating evidence regarding his tax liens.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was consistent with the record. The applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for his claims regarding the tax liens, and the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

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
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

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 contends that the Judge did not consider evidence of his efforts to resolve his tax liens. He states that he has resolved all of his debts except for those two liens and cites to evidence that he has retained a tax firm to assist him. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. The Judge stated that Applicant did not provide information to corroborate his claim that these liens had been discharged. This comment is consistent with the record that was before him. A person who fails to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02329.a1 DATE: 11/18/2016 DATE: November 18, 2016 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02329

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 December 3, 2015, 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). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On August 15, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 failed to consider mitigating evidence, rendering the adverse decision arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since 2012. He enjoys a good employment record. He incurred substantial state tax debts when he withdrew money from a retirement account, mistakenly believing that the transactions were tax free. The SOR alleged two liens for delinquent state taxes. Applicant also incurred liens from the IRS for delinquent Federal taxes. Applicant’s Federal tax problems were not alleged in the SOR. The Judge stated that he was considering the Federal liens for the limited purpose of understanding the circumstances underlying Applicant’s financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. Applicant could not explain the state liens, believing that his tax obligations had been resolved from proceeds resulting from the sale of a house. Though given an opportunity to present additional evidence after the hearing regarding the state tax debt, he submitted nothing beyond what was already in the record. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved several allegations in Applicant’s favor. These pertained to various collection accounts that were of relatively small amounts. However, he resolved allegations regarding the two state tax liens against Applicant. He stated that Applicant did not present evidence that would corroborate his claim that these liens had been discharged following the sale of his house. The Judge concluded that these liens raised concerns about Applicant’s current reliability that were not mitigated.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence of his efforts to resolve his tax liens. He states that he has resolved all of his debts except for those two liens and cites to evidence that he has retained a tax firm to assist him. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). The Judge stated that Applicant did not provide information to corroborate his claim that these liens had been discharged through the sale of his house. This comment is consistent with the record that was before him. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. A person who fails to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). “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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board