CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07923.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07923.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07923.a1

Jun 12, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to the applicant's failure to file tax returns. The applicant, representing herself, did not file Federal and state income tax returns for the years 2011 through 2014. She attributed this to poor record keeping and personal circumstances.

A disqualifying condition (F.1) was raised because the applicant failed to file these tax returns. Furthermore, she did not fulfill her promise to file the outstanding returns by the end of 2015, nor had she filed them by the time the record closed.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the judge's evaluation of the evidence was sound and that the decision to deny the clearance was consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability 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 issuedMar 5, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 13, 2017
Decision dateJun 12, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Failure to File Tax Returns as a Significant Factor in Security Clearance Decisions
Importance of Evidence of Financial Responsibility in Clearance Evaluations

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. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence regarding the applicant's tax delinquencies and financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not weigh the evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The adverse decision was affirmed based on the evidence presented.

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
William S. Fields

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: Given evidence that Applicant’s poor record keeping contributed to her problem and to evidence that she did not file her returns by the end of 2015 as she promised, we cannot say that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07923.a1 DATE: 06/12/2017 DATE: June 12, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07923

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 March 5, 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 decision on the written record. On April 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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 weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was first granted a security clearance in 1981. She experienced a year of unemployment from 2012 to 2013 and again for about four months in 2014. She used her savings to support herself during these periods. Applicant failed to file Federal and state income tax returns for 2011 through 2014. She attributed that failure to poor record keeping and to the fact that she was living in one state while providing care for her elderly mother who lived in another. She maintained her own finances as well as those of her mother, which became confusing, with the result that she could not provide records for 2011. This, in turn, affected subsequent years. She told her clearance interviewer that she would have her taxes filed by December 2015. A tax company submitted a letter dated April 2016 in which it disclosed that it had prepared Applicant’s returns for 2011 through 2015 and will submit them upon receipt of relevant information from Applicant. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected her tax difficulties. However, she also noted that Applicant had not filed her returns by the end of 2015, as she had promised, nor had she done so by the close of the record. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant had been granted a clearance as early as 1981 and that she had experienced difficulties that exerted an impact on her tax delinquencies. However, as of June 2016, Applicant had not filed her returns.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. She argues that the Judge erred in concluding that she had not presented evidence of financial responsibility. However, both in her findings and in her analysis, the Judge cited to evidence favorable to Applicant, including the letter from the tax company promising to file Applicant’s returns by April 2016. Given evidence that Applicant’s poor record keeping contributed to her problem and to evidence that she did not file her returns by the end of 2015 as she promised, we cannot say 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board