CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04233.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-04233.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04233.a1

Oct 25, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. DOHA security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from several unresolved financial issues, including a refusal to complete Federal income tax forms and multiple unsatisfied state tax liens.

Specifically, the applicant was terminated from a previous job for refusing to complete Federal tax forms. Additionally, record evidence supported the existence of seven unsatisfied state tax liens. The applicant's arguments that these state tax liens were "unfounded" were deemed frivolous by the judge.

The applicant failed to provide evidence that his financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control, and the judges found his overall arguments unpersuasive. Consequently, he did not demonstrate mitigation of the financial concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedJan 17, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 21, 2018
Decision dateOct 25, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Mitigation of Financial Concerns
Frivolous Arguments Regarding Tax Obligations Do Not Mitigate Security Concerns

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations, specifically unsatisfied state tax liens and refusal to complete Federal tax forms. The applicant contended that the Judge's findings were erroneous and did not consider all evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhillip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings contained errors and failed to consider the entirety of the record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's material findings were based upon substantial evidence and that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, and the arguments presented by the Applicant were deemed frivolous.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 was terminated from a job for refusing to complete Federal income tax forms. He also has seven unsatisfied state tax liens. Noting Applicant’s contention that he had completed the Federal tax forms, the Judge cited to record evidence establishing the contrary. Despite Applicant’s argument that the state tax liens were “unfounded,” the Judge stated that they were supported by the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04233.a1 DATE: 10/25/2018 DATE: October 25, 2018 In Re: -----------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04233

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 17, 2018, 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 August 21, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Phillip J. Katauskas 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 findings contained errors and whether the Judge’s overall decision failed to consider the entirety of the record evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant was terminated from a job for refusing to complete Federal income tax forms. He also has seven unsatisfied state tax liens. Noting Applicant’s contention that he had completed the Federal tax forms, the Judge cited to record evidence establishing the contrary. Despite Applicant’s argument that the state tax liens were “unfounded,” the Judge stated that they were supported by the record. The Judge found that Applicant has had “a problematic financial history when it comes to his state income tax obligations and those financial problems continue to this day.” Decision at 5. He stated that there is no evidence to suggest that Applicant’s state tax problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control or that any other mitigating condition applied. The Judge stated that Applicant’s reasons for having failed to complete his Federal tax forms were frivolous. He concluded that Applicant failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Many of his arguments reflect ones that he made in answering the SOR and in response to the File of Relevant Material. These arguments appear to question the legal authority of the government, whether Federal or state, to impose and enforce tax obligations. He also contends that he is not aware of any sufficient basis for the tax liens secured by his state. Many of Applicant’s arguments can properly be characterized as frivolous, as the Judge did. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the liens are not supported by the evidence, we hold to the contrary. The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial evidence. See ISCR Case No. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018). Applicant cites to his work history and to an absence of evidence that he has ever committed a security violation. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board