CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02473.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02473.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02473.a1

Aug 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and unresolved financial issues. These issues included unpaid federal and state income taxes, which the applicant failed to file timely, and outstanding child support obligations.

Despite filing for bankruptcy, the applicant's financial delinquencies were not resolved. The appeal board found no evidence that the applicant's financial situation had improved or that he had complied with any repayment plans.

The denial was affirmed, citing the applicant's persistent financial problems, including the failure to file tax returns and the unresolved debts, as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedNov 16, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 28, 2017
Decision dateAug 22, 2017

Cite For

Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Timely Filing of Tax Returns as a Security Concern
Impact of Bankruptcy on Financial Delinquencies

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 significant financial issues, including unpaid taxes and child support. 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 analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — 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'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 decision, which was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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 has debts to the Federal and to his state government for unpaid taxes and child support. He failed to file Federal and state income tax returns in a timely fashion for 2009 and for 2011 through 2013. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and was discharged in 2016. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-02473.a1 DATE: 08/22/2017 DATE: August 22, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02473

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq. , Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 16, 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 June 28, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 last held a security clearance in the 1970swhen he worked for a Defense contractor. He has debts to the Federal and to his state government for unpaid taxes and child support. He failed to file Federal and state income tax returns in a timely fashion for 2009 and for 2011 through 2013. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and was discharged in 2016. Applicant’s IRS transcripts show that his 2009 and 2010 returns were filed in 2011; his 2011 return in 2013; and his 2013 and 2014 returns in 2015. Applicant did not provide copies of signed tax returns. He has an agreement with the IRS to repay his Federal tax debt in monthly increments of $100. He has not corroborated his claimed compliance with the plan. In addition, he states that he has $5 per week deducted from his pay to pay off his tax debt to his state. Applicant owes money to his state for delinquent child support, although he disputes the amount. The SOR alleges nearly $54,000, but Applicant contends that the amount is about $10,000. He consulted an attorney to represent him in his child support case, but he could not afford to retain him. In early 2016, Applicant discharged nearly $105,800 in liabilities. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems are significant and that he did not take appropriate and responsible action in regard to them. Applicant presented no evidence showing the state of his current financial situation or that he has received financial counseling. Applicant has not shown that his bankruptcy has resolved his tax and child support delinquencies.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes information and documents from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to his evidence that he had filed his Federal tax returns and that he had set up deductions to pay his back taxes. 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). 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