CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00686.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00686.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00686.a1

Aug 27, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense industry employee with 30 years of experience was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent federal taxes. The applicant owed approximately $98,900 in federal taxes, which raised security concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant cited personal circumstances, including divorce and unemployment, as contributing factors to his financial difficulties. However, the appeal board found these arguments insufficient to overturn the initial denial. The board emphasized that the applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing his tax debts.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied. The decision highlighted the applicant's failure to resolve his substantial tax obligations, which undermined confidence in his judgment and reliability, consistent with Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-01495 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 30, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 4, 2021
Decision dateAug 27, 2021

Cite For

Upholding of Security Clearance Denial Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Personal Circumstances to Mitigate Financial Disqualifications
Presumption of Proper Evidence Consideration by the Judge in Appeals

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly weigh his personal circumstances and efforts to resolve his tax liabilities. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to his marital separation and divorce, medical issues, unemployment, and efforts to resolve the tax liability.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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, for example, that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to his marital separation and divorce, medical issues, unemployment, and efforts to resolve the tax liability. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00686.a1 DATE: 08/27/2021 DATE: August 27, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 20-00686

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 10, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—securityconcerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 4, 2021, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 has worked in the defense industry for about 30 years and has held a security clearance for most of that time. The SOR alleged that Applicant owed about $98,900 in delinquent Federal taxes for 2007-2018. He admitted he owed about $74,600 in delinquent taxes for 2009 2014. His tax debts arose from him taking early distributions from his 401(k) plan due to a divorce, medical issues, and paying educational expenses for his children. He also experienced a period of unemployment in 2015-2016 and incurred penalties for failing to file his tax returns in a timely manner. Although he estimated his Federal tax liability was over $100,000 in 2020, IRS documents reflect that liability was about $54,000 in early 2021. He has consulted with tax professionals and sporadically attempted to resolve his tax liability over the years, but it has been primarily reduced through credits applied from his more current tax years. His financial situation is otherwise stable. He did not act responsibly in attempting to resolve his substantial tax debts. His unwillingness to abide by the tax rules and regulations casts doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Rather, he contends the Judge failed to adhere to Executive Order 10865 and the Directive by not considering all of the record evidence and by not properly applying the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. He argues, for example, that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to his marital separation and divorce, medical issues, unemployment, and efforts to resolve the tax liability. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough 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. 19-01495 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 30, 2020). Additionally, Applicant relies on hearing-level decisions in other cases to argue the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Generally, how particular fact scenarios were adjudicated in other cases are not a relevant consideration in the Appeal Board’s review of a case. See, e.g., ISCR Case

No. 19-03344 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Dec. 21, 2020). None of the hearing-level decisions that Applicant cites are sufficient to show the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable.

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