CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08885.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08885.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08885.a1

Jun 21, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor seeking to renew his security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to an unresolved state tax lien exceeding $17,000. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, specifically regarding his claims of financial stability.

The appeal board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not resolve the significant tax lien. Furthermore, the applicant's assertions of financial stability were uncorroborated and lacked supporting evidence.

The judge determined that the applicant's refusal to pay the tax debt indicated a lack of rehabilitation, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”
— ISCR Case 14-06808 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 2016)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 26, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 20, 2017
Decision dateJun 21, 2017

Cite For

Affirmation of the Importance of Resolving Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
The Applicant's Burden to Present Evidence in Mitigation of Concerns Raised in the SOR
The Standard for Granting Security Clearances Being Consistent with 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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically a state tax lien. The Applicant argued that the Judge focused too much on this lien and did not adequately consider positive aspects of his record. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — 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 argues that the Decision devoted unreasonable attention to the one remaining tax lien at the expense of all the positive aspects of his record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all evidence and did not show that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the decision was sustainable on the record.

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 that the Decision devoted unreasonable attention to the one remaining tax lien at the expense of all the positive aspects of his record. We conclude that Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-08885.a1 DATE: 06/21/2017 DATE: June 21, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08885

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 26, 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 March 20, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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 been employed by a Defense contractor since 2008. He is seeking to renew a clearance that he has held since 2005. Applicant’s SOR included four Federal or state tax liens that resulted from a series of job-related relocations. The Judge resolved them in Applicant’s favor. However, one additional allegation pertained to a state tax lien for a little over $17,000, and the Judge found that it had not been resolved. Applicant claimed that he did not owe the claimed tax liability because he was working out of state during the time covered by the lien, tax years 1998 through 2004. The Judge found that he had not corroborated the basis for this dispute. He found that Applicant’s CPA had advised him to settle with the state because he had admitted that he had lived there during at least some of the years in question. The Judge noted a 2005 credit report, (admitted as Item 3), which listed addresses going back to 2001. These addresses were all in the state that had filed the lien. The Judge also stated that Applicant had provided no evidence other than uncorroborated assertions regarding his current financial stability and ability to repay his debt. “All record evidence indicates that he is unwilling to do so in any event.” Decision at 3. The Judge’s Analysis Though noting the liens that Applicant did resolve, the Judge concluded that he had not mitigated the $17,000 state tax lien. He cited to evidence that Applicant’s CPA had recommended settling with the state and observed that Applicant had not provided documentary evidence in support of his claim to have been residing elsewhere. He stated that Applicant’s “recent and continuing refusal to pay his apparently legitimate and substantial state income tax debt demonstrates an absence of rehabilitation or behavioral change.” Decision at 6. He concluded that it is likely that similar problems will recur and with them the potential for pressure, coercion, or duress.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his dispute of the tax debt in question, his having resolved other debts, his good security record, and other favorable evidence. He argues that the Decision devoted unreasonable attention to the one remaining tax lien at the expense of all the positive aspects of his record. After considering this argument in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Applicant argues that the Judge’s overall decision was based upon “limited information.” Appeal Brief at 2. He states that information regarding his ability to pay his debts is available through his Federal income tax filings but no one requested evidence of financial stability. In a DOHA proceeding it is the applicant’s duty to present evidence in mitigation of the concerns raised in his SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. It is neither the Judge’s nor Department Counsel’s duty to seek additional mitigating evidence or otherwise undertake further investigation of the concerns raised in an SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03062 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015). Although pro se applicant’s are not held to the standards of attorneys, they are expected to take reasonable steps to protect their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-02371 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2014). In the case before us, any paucity of mitigating evidence in the file was due to Applicant’s own decisions after having received adequate notice of his evidentiary responsibilities.1 The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. 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 14-06808 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 2016). 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 To the extent that Applicant is challenging the Judge’s findings about the state tax lien, we conclude that the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See ISCR Case No. 14-04435 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017).