CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04353.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-04353.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04353.a1

Sep 19, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues, specifically a substantial tax debt of $168,004. The judges found that the applicant did not demonstrate a meaningful track record of debt payment.

Evidence indicated that the applicant only began to address his tax issues after receiving the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Consequently, insufficient evidence was presented to mitigate the concerns regarding the significant tax debt.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the importance of national security in clearance determinations. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate a consistent effort to resolve his financial obligations prior to the SOR.

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 issuedJan 17, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 10, 2018
Decision dateSep 19, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Addressing Financial Obligations for Security Clearance
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Interests

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns regarding his tax debt.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant 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 appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
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: Applicant argues that he was addressing his tax problems in a reasonable manner. He argues specifically that the record does not support the Judge’s conclusion that it was the issuance of the SOR that prompted him to resolve his tax problem. Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-04353.a1 DATE: 09/19/2018 DATE: September 19, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04353

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 July 10, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant experienced financial problems due to tenants’ failure to pay rent and to a lengthy period of underemployment. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and was discharged in 2012. Applicant has a Federal tax lien, which he claimed that he would resolve through refinancing his house. He also stated that he had contacted the IRS about a payment plan but did not follow through because he thought that the refinancing would resolve his tax problem. In May 2018, in response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Applicant presented evidence of a payment plan of $2,000 a month, along with a single payment in furtherance of the plan. Applicant’s evidence stated that he owed $168,004 to the IRS. The Judge concluded that the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s bankruptcy were mitigated (although, his formal finding on that allegation was against Applicant). However, he reached the opposite conclusion concerning the tax debt. He noted that Applicant regained full time employment in 2015 yet did not begin to address his tax lien until after he had received the SOR. The Judge concluded that the “inference is unmistakable that the issuance of the SOR and the filing of the FORM prompted Applicant to address his delinquent federal income tax debts.” Decision at 5. The Judge also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt payment.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to evidence of his efforts to address his tax problems. For example, in his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant stated that he was working to resolve a tax debt to his state. Item 3, SCA, at 35-36. He argues that he was addressing his tax problems in a reasonable manner. He argues specifically that the record does not support the Judge’s conclusion that it was the issuance of the SOR that prompted him to resolve his tax problem. Applicant’s argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02391 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018). The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns arising from his substantial tax debt is sustainable. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board