CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00747 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00747

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/26/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 22-00747) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old engineer employed by a federal contractor since December 2019. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F, specifically alleging that the applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for multiple years, which raised questions about his financial responsibility. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming a misunderstanding of his tax obligations and citing difficulties in obtaining assistance from the IRS during the pandemic.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had indeed failed to file his 2015-2016 and 2018-2021 tax returns in a timely manner, despite being aware of the issues as early as 2019. The applicant admitted to not seeking professional tax assistance since 2015 and did not provide documentation to support his claims of identity theft or other mitigating circumstances. Although he eventually filed his overdue returns, the judge noted that the delays were significant and not adequately justified.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. The judge emphasized that the applicant's lack of timely action and failure to establish a track record of financial responsibility raised doubts about his eligibility for a security clearance, leading to a denial of 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. 22-00747

deniedSep 26, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old engineer, employed by a federal contractor since 2019, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to timely file federal income tax returns from 2015 to 2021, and state income tax returns for 2015-2016 and 2018-2021. These failures were cited as the primary disqualifying conditions.

The applicant's claims of misunderstanding tax requirements and difficulties related to the pandemic were considered but ultimately found insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns. The judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate responsible action to address the tax-filing issues, despite being aware of them since 2019.

The decision emphasized the necessity of financial responsibility for individuals seeking access to classified information. Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns from 2015 to 2021.
The applicant did not demonstrate responsible action to address his tax-filing issues despite being aware of them since 2019.
The applicant's claims of misunderstanding tax requirements and pandemic-related difficulties were not supported by sufficient evidence.

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.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control and the Individual Acted Responsibly Under the Circumstances.The applicant failed to take responsible action to address his tax-filing issues.
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.The applicant received some credit for finally filing his federal and state tax returns, but the delay minimized this credit.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 2, 2022
Answer filed—undated response with attachments
Hearing heldJun 21, 2023as scheduled
Decision dateSep 26, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Timely File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Action to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Determinations

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 against the applicant on allegations of failing to timely file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years. Although the applicant claimed to have filed extensions and documented that he does not owe any tax debt, the judge concluded that these factors did not mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to timely file his 2015 to 2021 federal and his 2015-2016 and 2018-2021 state income tax returns, as required.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant failed to timely file his 2015 to 2021 federal and his 2015-2016 and 2018-2021 state income tax returns, as required.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	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.