CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01120 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01120denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01120

deniedOct 7, 2019· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old aerospace technician was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from allegations that the applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for seven consecutive years, from 2011 through 2017, and failed to satisfy other financial obligations. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline paragraphs 19(c) and 19(f).

The administrative judge determined that the applicant's failure to file tax returns for multiple years demonstrated significant financial irresponsibility and disorganization. Although the applicant acknowledged these tax issues, he did not provide any evidence of efforts to resolve them or to file the delinquent returns.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the necessary standards of trustworthiness and reliability required for access to classified information, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011 through 2017.
The applicant did not provide evidence of efforts to resolve his tax issues or file delinquent returns.
The applicant's inaction was attributed to financial irresponsibility and disorganization.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure to file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established governmental rules and systems.”
— ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 17, 2019
Answer filedMay 9, 2019Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateOct 7, 2019

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Issues
Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years, which raised significant financial concerns. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence of efforts to address these issues, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to satisfy debts and meet financial obligations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) --- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01120 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 10/07/2019 ______________ Decision ______________ GALES, Robert Robinson, Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding financial considerations. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On March 28, 2018, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application. On April 17, 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to him, under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended and modified; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive); and Directive 4 of the Security Executive Agent (SEAD 4), National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) (December 10, 2016), for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, effective June 8, 2017.

The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and detailed reasons why the DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The SOR recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn statement dated May 9, 2019, Applicant responded to the SOR and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. A complete copy of the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant by DOHA on June 4, 2019, and he was afforded an opportunity after receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. In addition to the FORM, Applicant was furnished a copy of the Directive as well as the Adjudicative Guidelines applicable to his case. Applicant received the FORM on July 10, 2019. His response was due on August 9, 2019. Applicant chose not to respond to the FORM, for as of September 6, 2019, no response had been received. The case was assigned to me on September 6, 2019.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted, without comments, all of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations in the SOR (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. and 1.b.). Applicant’s admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact:

Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been serving as an aerospace technician with his current employer since September 2011. He previously worked as a sheet metal mechanic and programmer from January 2005 until November 2010, and he was unemployed from November 2010 until September 2011. His educational background was not reported. He has never served with the U.S. military. He has never held a secret clearance. Applicant has never been married, and he has no children.

Financial Considerations

General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in the following exhibits: Item 2 (Answer to the SOR, dated May 9, 2019); Item 3 (e-QIP, dated March 28, 2018); and Item 4 (Enhanced Subject Interview, dated October 31, 2018). As of April 17, 2019, Applicant failed to file both his federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. (Item 2) He attributed his inaction to being financially irresponsible and disorganized, and he explained that he had lost all of his tax-related documents. (Item 4, at 4-7) During an interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on October 31, 2018, Applicant stated that he is not unwilling or unable to satisfy his tax debts, but he acknowledged that he had not made any progress towards doing so. (Item

4, at 4-7) He also acknowledged that he did not have an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to pay the federal taxes that he may owe. (Item 4, at 4-7) It was Applicant’s intention to engage the services of an attorney to assist him. (Item 3, at 26- 28; Item 4, at 4-7) To date, Applicant has submitted no evidence to indicate that: he has contacted the IRS or the state revenue department; he has contacted an attorney to assist him; or he has filed any delinquent federal or state income tax return. There is a legal requirement to file a federal income tax return, and it is based upon an individual’s gross income and other enumerated conditions. Once it is determined, under 26 U.S.C. § 7203, Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, that there is an obligation to so file, the following applies: Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year." There is no evidence that Applicant made any efforts to address his delinquent taxes, despite having made promises in his March 2018 e-QIP and October 2018 OPM interview that he would do so. It is not known what Applicant’s current financial resources may be because he did not report his current net monthly income; monthly expenses; and any monthly remainder that might be available for discretionary spending or savings.

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” (Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)) As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant an applicant eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.)

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the guidelines in SEAD 4. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

An administrative judge need not view the guidelines as inflexible, ironclad rules of law. Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a meaningful decision.

In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.” “Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all contrary evidence in the record.” (ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1)) “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” (See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994))

The Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a potentially disqualifying condition under the Directive, and has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Once the Government has produced substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant has the burden of persuasion to present evidence in refutation, explanation, extenuation or mitigation, sufficient to overcome the doubts raised by the Government’s case. The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. (See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005))

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well. It is because of this special relationship that the Government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Furthermore, “security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” (Egan, 484 U.S. at 531)

Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” (See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7) Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the Applicant has or has not

met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:

Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;

(f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual federal, state, or local income tax as required.

The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. As of April 17, 2019, none of those income tax returns had been filed. AG ¶¶ 19(c) and 19(f) have been established. There is no evidence that Applicant has an inability to satisfy his debts or that he has been unwilling to satisfy his debts regardless of an ability to do so. Accordingly, and AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(b) have not been established.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties under AG ¶ 20:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.

None of the mitigating conditions apply. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s continuing failure to file his federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, make it rather easy to conclude that it was not infrequent and it is likely to remain unchanged, much like it has been for nearly the past decade. Applicant attributed his inaction to being financially irresponsible and disorganized, and he explained that he had lost all of his tax-related documents. In 2018, he indicated that he would take certain corrective actions, but now, ten months into 2019, he has submitted no evidence that any of those actions have even commenced. Applicant failed repeatedly to fulfill his legal obligations with respect to filing his federal and state income tax returns, and by failing to do so, he does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.

The DOHA Appeal Board has observed:

Failure to file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established governmental rules and systems. Voluntary compliance with such rules and systems is essential for protecting classified information. ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002). As we have noted in the past, a clearance adjudication is not directed at collecting debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08049 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 22, 2008). By the same token, neither is it directed toward inducing an applicant to file tax returns. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment and reliability. Id. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations 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). See

Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 886 (1961).

ISCR Case No. 14-04437 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016). See ISCR Case No. 14-05476 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002)); ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015).

Clearance decisions are aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. They are not a debt-collection procedure. The guidelines do not require an applicant to establish resolution of every debt or issue alleged in the SOR. An applicant needs only to establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant immediately resolve issues or make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts or issues alleged in an SOR be resolved first. Rather, a reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide for the payment of such debts, or resolution of such issues, one at a time. Mere promises to resolve financial issues in the future, without further confirmed action, are insufficient. The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts: In order to qualify for application of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy [or statute of limitations]) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition].

(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)

Applicant’s actions, or inaction, under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. (See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010).)

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(d):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Under SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. Moreover, I have evaluated the various aspects of this case in light of the totality of the record evidence and have not merely performed a piecemeal analysis. (See U.S. v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 392 (2d Cir. 1966); See also ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006)) There is some evidence in favor of mitigating Applicant’s financial concerns. Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been serving as an aerospace technician with his current employer since September 2011. He previously worked as a sheet metal mechanic and programmer from January 2005 until November 2010. The disqualifying evidence under the whole-person concept is simply more substantial. Applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. As of April 17, 2019, none of those income tax returns had been filed. Furthermore, Applicant has submitted no evidence regarding any completed efforts to resolve his financial issues; no personal background information about himself; and no information regarding his work background and performance. Overall, the evidence leaves me with substantial questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all of these reasons, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations. See SEAD 4, App. A, ¶¶ 2(d)(1) through AG 2(d)(9).

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F:

AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b.:

Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge