CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02266 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02266

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date7/22/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Applicant's Counsel: Sean C. Donohue
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 54-year-old self-employed master plumber who sought a security clearance to work for a defense contractor. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline F, related to financial considerations. The core allegations included the applicant's failure to file federal and state income tax returns and pay taxes owed for the years 2014 through 2019, resulting in significant delinquent tax liabilities.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to failing to file his tax returns on time and acknowledged owing delinquent federal taxes. He denied having any outstanding state taxes, claiming he had settled that debt. The applicant explained that his tax issues stemmed from a malfunctioning computer and admitted to feeling overwhelmed by the paperwork required to rectify his situation. He indicated that he had taken steps to address his tax obligations, including entering into repayment plans with the IRS and the state, and had made substantial payments toward his debts.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, stating that despite his efforts to rectify his tax issues, financial considerations remained a significant concern. The judge emphasized that the applicant's history of failing to meet tax obligations raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, which are critical factors in determining eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02266

deniedJul 22, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old self-employed master plumber was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from his failure to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2019. As of November 2021, he owed $24,294 in delinquent federal taxes and $4,553 in delinquent state taxes.

By June 2022, his total delinquent federal tax liability had increased to between $43,000 and $44,000. The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(f), AG ¶ 19(a), and AG ¶ 19(c), while also considering Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(g).

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant's ongoing and significant tax liabilities, despite efforts to establish repayment plans, raised concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2019.
He owed significant delinquent federal taxes totaling between $43,000 and $44,000 as of June 2022.
The applicant's ongoing tax liabilities indicated a lack of good judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns or Failure to Pay Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax as Required.
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedFinancial Problems That Raise Security Concerns.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Financial Counseling for the Problem From a Legitimate and Credible Source.
AG ¶ 20(g)appliedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those Arrangements.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 10, 2021
Answer filedJan 9, 2022Applicant initially responded pro se.
Hearing heldJun 8, 2022
Decision dateJul 22, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Tax Liabilities Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Tax Compliance in Security Clearance Evaluations
Consideration of Financial Counseling as a Mitigating Factor in Security Clearance Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including the failure to file federal and state income tax returns for several years and significant delinquent tax debts. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations of unpaid federal taxes, while finding in favor of the applicant regarding the failure to file state tax returns and the state tax debt, leading to a denied security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2019.	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant failed to file state income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2019.	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant owed delinquent federal taxes of $24,294 as of November 2021. $24,294	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant owed delinquent state taxes of $4,553 as of November 2021. $4,553	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.