CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01614 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01614

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/24/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614) →See the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614) →See the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01614) →
Participants
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Applicant's Counsel: Todd A. Hull
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 63-year-old contractor employee at a U.S. Embassy in the Middle East, with a history of military service in the U.S. Marine Corps. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct), primarily related to the applicant's failure to pay federal and state income taxes for multiple years.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to having unpaid federal taxes for certain years but argued that his tax obligations were deferred due to his service in a combat zone, as per the Internal Revenue Code. He provided evidence of his compliance with tax laws and expressed intentions to establish a payment plan once he was no longer in a combat zone. Witnesses, including his security manager and family members, testified to his character and financial responsibility, asserting that he had no delinquent financial accounts and was a valued employee.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he successfully mitigated the security concerns related to his financial situation. The judge noted the applicant's compliance with tax laws and the absence of any deliberate evasiveness regarding his tax obligations, ultimately granting him national security eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Withdrawn
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 23-01614

grantedSep 24, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 63-year-old contractor working in a combat zone whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged several tax-related issues, including failure to pay federal income taxes for 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015, and failure to file federal income tax returns for 2014 and 2020. Additionally, the applicant was cited for unpaid state taxes from 2018 and unpaid federal taxes from 2022.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), and AG ¶ 19(f) were raised. However, the applicant successfully demonstrated that his financial obligations were legally deferred under IRS provisions due to his service in a combat zone.

Mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(c) were applied. The decision found no evidence of wrongdoing or an inability to pay taxes when due, as the applicant provided evidence of compliance with tax laws applicable to combat zone service. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided evidence of compliance with tax laws while serving in a combat zone.
There was no evidence of wrongdoing or inability to pay taxes when due.
The applicant's financial obligations were deemed legally deferred under IRS provisions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Income Tax Returns

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Due to Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Basis for Financial Problems

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2023
Answer filedDec 21, 2023
Hearing heldJul 16, 2024record held open until July 30, 2024
Decision dateSep 24, 2024

Cite For

Demonstrating Compliance with Tax Obligations Under Combat Zone Provisions
Successful Rebuttal of Financial Considerations Security Concerns
Application of Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had failed to pay federal income taxes for several years and had also failed to file tax returns for certain years. However, the judge concluded that the applicant was compliant with tax laws and had valid reasons for not being able to set up payment plans while in a combat zone, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to pay his federal income taxes for tax years 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015.	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant failed to file any income tax returns for tax years 2014 and 2020.	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.i	Applicant was indebted to his state for unpaid taxes for tax year 2018.	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.l	Applicant was indebted to the federal government for unpaid taxes for tax year 2022.	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.