Loading case…

ISCR 16-03393.a1: Guideline E security clearance hearing, denied (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-03393.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03393.a1

deniedAug 6, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· hearing

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to file multiple years of tax returns.

Crucially, the applicant was found to have falsified his security clearance application by omitting these tax delinquencies. This omission constituted a disqualifying condition under Guideline E, specifically AG ¶ 16 and AG ¶ 19.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that the findings of falsification alone were sufficient to uphold the adverse decision. Therefore, the applicant's security clearance was ultimately denied.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant failed to file required tax returns for multiple years.
The applicant was found to have falsified his security clearance application by omitting tax delinquencies.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedFalsification of Information
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key rule quoted

“The adverse decision is sustainable on the unchallenged findings and conclusions under Guideline E.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 29, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 6, 2018

Cite for

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Unchallenged Findings Under Guideline E
Importance of Tax Compliance in Security Clearance Evaluations
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal Process

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, which included falsification of his security clearance application by failing to disclose tax filing delinquencies and federal tax liens. The adverse decision was affirmed on appeal, with no errors in the judge's findings being raised by the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to file required federal and state income tax returns for multiple years and had numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $77,300. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant makes various assertions about his debts and the filing of his tax returns. However, he raises no assertion that the Judge committed any error in her unfavorable findings and conclusions pertaining to the falsification allegations under Guideline E. Because the unfavorable falsification findings and conclusions are sufficient independently to support the Judge’s overall adverse decision, we need not address Applicant’s assignments of error regarding the Guideline F allegations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-03393.a1 DATE: 08/06/2018 DATE: August 6, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No.16-03393

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 January 30, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 29, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, his Federal and state income tax returns for 2005 through 2011, 2013, and 2014; that he had 11 delinquent debts totaling about $77,300; and that he falsified his 2015 security clearance application by failing to disclose his tax filing delinquencies and by failing to disclose that he had Federal tax liens and other Federal tax delinquencies. The Judge found against him on all of the SOR allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant makes various assertions about his debts and the filing of his tax returns. However, he raises no assertion that the Judge committed any error in her unfavorable findings and conclusions pertaining to the falsification allegations under Guideline E. Because the unfavorable falsification findings and conclusions are sufficient independently to support the Judge’s overall adverse decision, we need not address Applicant’s assignments of error regarding the Guideline F allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant also requests the opportunity to submit an additional brief so that he could submit evidence supporting his claims and indicates that he would like the option to retain counsel to produce a more detailed appeal brief, if his finances allow it. We do not have the authority to grant Applicant’s requests. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Consequently, we do not have authority to grant Applicant a continuance to develop additional favorable evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014). Additionally, the Directive authorizes only one brief for each party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09389 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015).

The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. The adverse decision is sustainable on the unchallenged findings and conclusions under Guideline E.

ORDER

The Decision is Affirmed. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board