A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-02223.h1
GrantedDecided Apr 28, 2017 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a college student, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to failing to file his 2013 federal and state tax returns. He subsequently filed the missing returns and demonstrated that his current financial situation is stable and responsible. The judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the financial concerns, granting him eligibility for a security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant filed his 2013 federal and state tax returns after initially failing to do so.
- He has filed all subsequent years' tax returns and does not owe any tax debt.
- The applicant's current financial situation is stable and responsible.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recent.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The individual has received counseling or treatment for the problem.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The individual has established a good track record of financial responsibility.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 11/23/2016
- Answer filed
- 01/03/2017
- Hearing held
- 04/11/2017
- Decision date
- 04/28/2017 Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Importance of Filing Tax Returns for Security Clearance
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02333 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Mary Margaret Forman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
04/28/2017 ______________
Decision
______________
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:
On November 23, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing a security concern under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.
Applicant responded to the SOR on January 3, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on March 30, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 11, 2017. On April 27, 2017, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
Applicant failed to file his 2013 federal and state tax returns. He explained that he was attending college during that year and got caught up in his school and neglected filing his tax returns. Since then, he has filed his 2013 federal and state tax returns. He also has filed all subsequent years’ returns. He does not owe tax debt to either the IRS or the state. The evidence established that Applicant’s current finances are in good order. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d).
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.
________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge