Loading case…

ISCR 15-06525.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-06525.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06525.a1

Aug 10, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.

Specifically, the applicant owed back taxes to the IRS for the years 2013 through 2015. Additionally, he had five collection accounts and one charged-off account, which he admitted to. Despite claiming financial difficulties stemming from a divorce, the applicant did not provide documentation to support his asserted efforts to resolve his tax issues.

The board emphasized that the applicant's failure to provide evidence of a concrete plan or actions taken to address his financial obligations, as outlined in Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, was a primary factor in the denial.

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 issuedApr 17, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldMay 18, 2017
Decision dateAug 10, 2017

Cite for

Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Good-faith Effort to Address Debts
Impact of Unresolved Financial Issues on National Security Eligibility

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 issues, including back taxes owed to the IRS and multiple collection accounts. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher 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'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 Board did not find the Judge's conclusions to be arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

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 owes back taxes to the IRS for 2013 through 2015. He also had five collection accounts and a charged-off account. These allegations are supported by Applicant’s admissions. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06525.a1 DATE: 08/10/2017 DATE: August 10, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06525

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 April 17, 2016, 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 May 18, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 Applicant has held a clearance for 31 years. The SOR alleges that he failed to file Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 and 2014. He owes back taxes to the IRS for 2013 through 2015. He also had five collection accounts and a charged-off account. These allegations are supported by Applicant’s admissions. The non-tax allegations are supported by the contents of his credit reports. Applicant’s problems arose from a contentious divorce. He claimed that his ex-wife’s lack of cooperation was at the root of his failure to file his tax returns. They finalized their divorce in 2016, and Applicant claimed that he filed his delinquent returns in that year. Applicant failed to provide promised copies of the returns. He estimated his total debt as about $59,000. Applicant hired a tax professional who contacted the IRS about a payment plan, but Applicant provided no documentation about this. Applicant did resolve several collection accounts, however. Applicant also has a debt resulting from a foreclosure on a timeshare. Applicant testified that he thought the debt had been cancelled, but he did not provide documentary proof. Applicant presented evidence that he will receive a substantial retirement pension of over $1 million. He has $30,000 in a retirement account, and his monthly income is about $3,500. Applicant paid his wife spousal support of about $23,000 for 2014 and 2015. He has not sought financial counseling, and he did not provide a budget. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s problems continue to cast doubt upon his judgment and reliability. Though noting Applicant’s divorce, he stated that Applicant’s tax problems went back many years and that he failed to acquire professional assistance until late in 2016. He stated that Applicant’s dilatory response to his tax filings and his current, unaddressed tax debt are such that there are no clear indications that his problems are under control. He concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay his debts.

DISCUSSION

Much of Applicant’s appeal submission consists of matters from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that he was dilatory in addressing his tax problems. Much of his argument is an effort to provide context for his financial problems in order to show that he had been diligent in addressing them. Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017). 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