CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02161.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02161.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02161.a1

May 17, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues, a decision affirmed by the appeal board. The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to file federal and state tax returns in a timely manner, coupled with delinquent federal tax debts.

Specifically, the applicant owed approximately $4,000 for the 2013 tax year and about $3,000 for the 2014 tax year, totaling around $7,000. The applicant did not offer a valid excuse for these unfulfilled tax obligations.

The appeal board upheld the denial, citing that the applicant's financial conduct demonstrated a lack of good judgment and reliability, which are essential for security eligibility. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, and no mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were applied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's arguments regarding positive efforts to resolve financial issues were insufficient.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax returns and paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-08782 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 5, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 1, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 9, 2018
Decision dateMay 17, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on Failure to Fulfill Tax Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of Legal Compliance for Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Mitigation Arguments Regarding Financial Issues

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 argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, citing efforts to resolve financial issues. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge properly considered the applicant's financial issues and the implications for security eligibility.

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
Charles C. Hale
James F. Duffy

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: Even if an applicant has resolved some or all of his or her financial problems, a Judge may still consider the circumstances underlying those problems for what they may reveal about the applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02161.a1 DATE: 05/17/2018 DATE: May 17, 2018 In Re: ---------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02161

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, 2017, 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 February 9, 2018, 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. Background The SOR contains six allegations, including that Applicant failed to file certain Federal and state tax returns in a timely manner and that he had delinquent Federal tax debts of about $4,000 for 2013 and about $3,000 for 2014. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two non-tax-related debts and against him on the tax-related allegations. The Judge concluded that Applicant did not offer a valid excuse for not filing his Federal and state tax returns as required and that he did not act responsibly regarding his Federal and state income tax debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends the Judge erred in analyzing the whole-person concept by concluding he did not mitigate the alleged security concerns. He argues he mitigated those concerns by “showing a positive effort” in getting his finances in order. Appeal Brief at 1. In support of his arguments, he highlights, among other matters, that he filed all of his tax returns by the time of the hearing and that he encountered a financial hardship due to a pay cut. His arguments are not sufficient to show the Judge committed any harmful error. We first note that, even if an applicant has resolved some or all of his or her financial problems, a Judge may still consider the circumstances underlying those problems for what they may reveal about the applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015). Second, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). In the Appeal Brief, Applicant also states that a security clearance denial will have a negative impact on him. However, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax returns and paying taxes when due, 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. 15-08782 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 5, 2017). “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 ¶ 2.3 and Directive, Encl. 2, App. A, ¶ 2(b) (“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board