CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00339 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00339

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/14/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Applicant's Counsel: Todd A. Hull
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old program manager employed by a government contractor since January 2024. The Department of Defense's Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed security concerns under Guideline F, which pertains to financial considerations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant failed to timely file federal and state income tax returns for multiple tax years, specifically 2017 through 2021, raising questions about his reliability and judgment.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his failure to file tax returns for the specified years but provided mitigating information. He explained that his delays were due to anxiety related to the filing process and believed he did not owe taxes, which contributed to his decision not to file. He eventually filed all outstanding tax returns in 2023 and received counseling for his anxiety. The applicant also demonstrated financial responsibility by ensuring he had no delinquent debts and promised to file his tax returns on time in the future.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial concerns were not sufficiently mitigated. The judge emphasized that the applicant's failure to meet tax obligations indicated poor judgment and self-control, which are critical factors in determining eligibility for access to classified information. The decision ultimately denied the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, citing the need to prioritize national security interests.
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. 25-00339

deniedNov 14, 2025· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old program manager was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unmitigated financial concerns. The applicant admitted to failing to timely file federal income tax returns for tax years 2017, 2018, and 2019, and state income tax returns for tax years 2017 through 2023. These failures raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) paragraph 19(f).

While the applicant filed the outstanding returns before the hearing, his stated reasons for the delays, including anxiety and erroneous beliefs about tax filing requirements, were deemed insufficient justification. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b) and AG ¶ 20(g) but ultimately found them insufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible actions in addressing his tax filing issues prior to the hearing, leading to questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to timely file multiple federal and state income tax returns, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's reasons for the delays, including anxiety and erroneous beliefs about tax filing requirements, were deemed insufficient justification.
The applicant did not demonstrate responsible actions in addressing his tax filing issues prior to the hearing.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns as Required

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant did not prove he acted responsibly under the circumstances.
AG ¶ 20(g)rejectedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those ArrangementsThe applicant's late filings did not demonstrate a proactive approach to resolving his tax issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2025
Answer filedApr 28, 2025
Hearing heldJul 18, 2025via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateNov 14, 2025

Cite For

Unmitigated Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Justification for Delays in Tax Filings
The Importance of Timely Compliance with Tax Obligations in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 that the applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for multiple tax years, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims of anxiety and mental health issues, the judge concluded that the evidence of financial irresponsibility outweighed any mitigating factors, resulting in a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to timely file as required his federal income tax returns for TYs 2017, 2018, and 2019.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to timely file, as required, state income tax returns for TYs 2017 through 2023. $1,500	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—

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.