CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06606.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06606.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06606.h1

deniedFeb 21, 2017· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 35-year-old programmer, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to failure to file federal and state tax returns from 2005 to 2014 and having delinquent debts totaling $1,535. Despite some positive financial developments, the judge found that the applicant's history of non-compliance with tax obligations raised significant concerns about his reliability and judgment.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2013 (1.a). Applicant disputed his responsibility for the telecommunications debt in SOR ¶ 1.e for $97 (1.e). SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g are two medical debts for $600 and $50 (1.f). SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g are two medical debts for $600 and $50 (1.g).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 19(g). The decision turned on the following: Applicant failed to file federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014; Applicant has delinquent debts totaling $1,535, with no substantial efforts made to resolve them; The applicant did not demonstrate a good faith effort to address his financial obligations.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to file federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014.
Applicant has delinquent debts totaling $1,535, with no substantial efforts made to resolve them.
The applicant did not demonstrate a good faith effort to address his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(g)raisedFailure to File Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns as Required

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure to file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established governmental rules and systems.”
— ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 5, 2015
Answer filedFeb 11, 2016
Hearing heldDec 6, 2016
Decision dateFeb 21, 2017

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Significance of Financial Obligations in Security Clearance Determinations
The Importance of Demonstrating Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns against the applicant, including failure to file tax returns for several years and several delinquent debts totaling $1,535. While the applicant claimed some debts were disputed or resolved, the judge ultimately ruled against the applicant on most allegations, citing insufficient mitigation of the financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2013.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (g) unexplained affluence	—	—
1.e	Applicant disputed his responsibility for the telecommunications debt in SOR ¶ 1.e for $97. $97	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other
1.f	SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g are two medical debts for $600 and $50. $600	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g are two medical debts for $600 and $50. $50	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06606 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/21/2017 ___________

STATEMENT OF CASE

___________

HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge:

Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges and the record establishes that Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2013. Applicant has delinquent SOR debts totaling $1,535. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

History of the Case

On December 21, 2014, Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On December 5, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant pursuant to Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006.

The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. (Hearing Exhibit (HE) 2) Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline.

On February 11, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR, and on March 3, 2016, he requested a hearing. (Tr. 14) On August 8, 2016, Department Counsel indicated she was ready to proceed. On September 1, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On November 17, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for December 6, 2016. (HE 1) The hearing was held as scheduled.

Department Counsel offered five exhibits; Applicant offered four exhibits; and all proffered exhibits were admitted without objection. (Tr. 16-20; Government Exhibits (GE) 1-5; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-D) On December 14, 2016, DOHA received the transcript of the hearing. A post-hearing delay was granted until February 8, 2017, to permit Applicant to provide additional information about his finances. (Tr. 38) On February 17, 2017, Department Counsel advised me that no post-hearing documentation was received.

Findings of Fact1

In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.g. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact.

Applicant is a 35-year-old programmer, and he has worked for a DOD contractor for two years. (Tr. 5, 7) In 2000, Applicant graduated from high school. (Tr. 5-6) He attended college for one semester. (Tr. 7) In 2016, he married, and he has three step children who are ages 7, 13, and 15. (Tr. 6)

Financial Considerations

Applicant was unemployed from August 2013 to February 2014. (Tr. 7-8; GE 1) By February 2014, he was almost destitute and homeless. (Tr. 34) His salary was increased in the past six months to $51,000. (Tr. 8) His spouse’s annual salary is about $28,000. (Tr. 21) Applicant has not received financial counseling, and he does not have a budget. (Tr. 21, 23) Applicant has about $150 in savings, and his spouse has about $3,000 in savings. (Tr. 22) He and his spouse have been making progress paying their living expenses. (Tr. 34) They are close to being caught up on their non-SOR debts. (Tr. 34)

Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014.2 (Tr. 25; SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.bresponse) Applicant said he intended to hire an accountant on January 15, 2017 to file his tax returns. (Tr. 26) He believed that he only owed federal income taxes for tax year 2013 because that year he received unemployment compensation, and he did not have federal income taxes withheld from his unemployment compensation paycheck. (Tr. 27)

Applicant owes $360 to a state for tax year 2007. (Tr. 28; SOR response ¶ 1.c) He has not investigated or taken action to resolve the $575 debt for an apartment he lived in previously. (Tr. 29; SOR response ¶ 1.d)

Applicant disputed his responsibility for the telecommunications debt in SOR ¶ 1.e for $97. (Tr. 29) He said he did not remember having an account with the telecommunications company. (Tr. 29; GE 3; SOR response ¶ 1.e)

SOR ¶¶ 1.fand 1.gare two medical debts for $600 and $50. (GE 4) Applicant accepted responsibility for the two debts; however, he did not indicate he had done anything to resolve these two debts. (Tr. 30-31) He believed he may have paid the $50 debt in SOR ¶ 1.g. (Tr. 31)

Applicant timely filed and paid his federal and state income tax returns for tax year 2015. (Tr. 23-24; AE A-D) He paid taxes to one state, and he received refunds from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the other state where he filed a tax return. (Tr. 24)

In sum, Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, SOR response, and hearing record. Except for paying one $50 medical debt, he conceded he has not made any payments to address any of the other SOR debts. The IRS may have generated tax returns for several years on Applicant’s behalf; however, Applicant is not aware of whether the IRS did so. (Tr. 35) Applicant did not provide IRS tax transcripts. (Tr. 35)

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial problems:

Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, SOR response, and hearing record. AG ¶ 19 provides three disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;” and “(g) failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same.” The record established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c), and 19(g) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago,3 was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;4 and (e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

No mitigating conditions fully apply; however, Applicant presented some positive financial information. Applicant’s finances were damaged when he was unemployed, which is a circumstance beyond his control. He acknowledged his delinquent debts, and he said he intends to pay his debts. I have credited Applicant with mitigating SOR ¶¶ 1.e (telecommunications debt for $97) because he said he never had an account with the telecommunications company and 1.g (medical debt for $50) because he said he believed this debt was paid.

A willful failure to timely make (means complete and file with the IRS) a federal income tax return is a misdemeanor-level federal criminal offense.5 For purposes of this decision, I am not weighing Applicant’s failure to timely file his federal income tax returns against him as a federal crime. See also note 5, supra.

The record establishes that Applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014. The DOHA Appeal Board has commented:

Failure to file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established governmental rules and systems. Voluntary compliance with such rules and systems is essential for protecting classified information. ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002). As we have noted in the past, a clearance adjudication is not directed at collecting debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08049 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 22, 2008). By the same token, neither is it directed toward inducing an applicant to file tax returns. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment and reliability. Id. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 886 (1961).

ISCR Case No. 14-04437 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016). See ISCR Case No. 14-05476 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 01-05340 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002)); ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). The Appeal Board clarified that even in instances where an “[a]pplicant has purportedly corrected [the applicant’s] federal tax problem, and the fact that [applicant] is now motivated to prevent such problems in the future, does not preclude careful consideration of [a]pplicant’s security worthiness in light of [applicant’s] longstanding prior behavior evidencing irresponsibility” including a failure to timely file federal income tax returns. See ISCR Case No. 15-01031 at 3 and note 3 (App. Bd. June 15, 2016) (characterizing “no harm, no foul” approach to an Applicant’s course of conduct and employed an “all’s well that ends well” analysis as inadequate to support approval of access to classified information with focus on timing of filing of tax returns after receipt of the SOR).

In ISCR Case No. 15-01031 at 2 (App. Bd. June 15, 2016), the Appeal Board reversed the grant of a security clearance, and noted the following primary relevant disqualifying facts:

misdemeanor . . . . Applicant filed his 2011 Federal income tax return in December 2013 and received a $2,074 tax refund. He filed his 2012 Federal tax return in September 2014 and his 2013 Federal tax return in October 2015. He received Federal tax refunds of $3,664 for 2012 and $1,013 for 2013.

Notwithstanding the lack of any tax debt owed in ISCR Case No. 15-01031 (App. Bd. June 15, 2016), the Appeal Board provided the following principal rationale for reversing the grant of a security clearance:

Failure to comply with Federal and/or state tax laws suggests that an applicant has a problem with abiding by well-established Government rules and regulations. Voluntary compliance with rules and regulations is essential for protecting classified information. . . . By failing to file his 2011, 2012, and 2013 Federal income tax returns in a timely manner, Applicant did not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of persons granted access to classified information.

ISCR Case No. 15-01031 at 4 (App. Bd. June 15, 2016) (citations omitted).

The negative financial and judgment information in Applicant’s case is significant. The record established that Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014, and he has delinquent SOR debts totaling $1,535. His explanations are insufficient to fully mitigate financial considerations security concerns.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under Guideline F, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is a 35-year-old programmer, and he has worked for a DOD contractor for two years. He attended college for one semester. In 2016, he married, and he has three step children living in his home. Applicant was unemployed from August 2013 to February 2014. By February 2014, he was almost destitute and homeless. He and his spouse have been making progress paying their living expenses, and they are close to being caught up on their non-SOR debts.

Applicant did not file his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2014. He has delinquent SOR debts totaling $1,535. When a tax issue is involved, an administrative judge is required to consider how long an applicant waits to file their tax returns, whether the IRS generates the tax returns, and how long the applicant waits after a tax debt arises to begin and complete making payments.6 The primary problem here is that Applicant has not filed all of his state and federal income tax returns as required by state and federal laws.

It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2dat 1401. Unmitigated financial considerations concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With a track record of behavior consistent with his obligations, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness.

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Financial considerations concerns are not mitigated.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_________________________ MARK HARVEY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Some details have been excluded in order to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits.

2 Applicant’s SOR does not allege that he did not timely file his federal and state tax returns for tax year 2014. In ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006), the Appeal Board listed five circumstances in which conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered stating: (a) to assess an applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for whole person analysis under Directive Section 6.3. Id. (citing ISCR Case No. 02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 24, 2003)). See also ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 3 (App. Bd. April 6, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 14- 00151 at 3, n. 1 (App. Bd. Sept. 12, 2014); ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006)). Applicant’s failure to file his state and federal tax returns for tax year 2014 will not be considered except for the five purposes listed above. 3A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)).

4 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts: In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. (internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).

5 Title 26 U.S.C, § 7203, willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, reads: Any person . . . required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to . . . make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a A willful failure to make return, keep records, or supply information when required, is a misdemeanor without regard to existence of any tax liability. Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943); United States v. Walker, 479 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. McCabe, 416 F.2d 957 (7th Cir. 1969); O’Brien v. United States, 51 F.2d 193 (7th Cir. 1931). 6The recent emphasis of the Appeal Board on security concerns arising from tax cases is instructive. See ISCR Case No. 14-05794 at 7 (App. Bd. July 7, 2016) (reversing grant of security clearance and stating, “His delay in taking action to resolve his tax deficiency for years and then taking action only after his security clearance was in jeopardy undercuts a determination that Applicant has rehabilitated himself and does not reflect the voluntary compliance of rules and regulations expected of someone entrusted with the nation’s secrets.”); ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 2-6 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (reversing grant of a security clearance and emphasizing the applicant’s failure to timely file and pay taxes); ISCR Case No. 12-05053 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2014) (reversing grant of a security clearance, noting not all tax returns filed). See also ISCR Case No. 14-03358 at 3, 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2015) (reversing grant of a security clearance, and stating “A security clearance represents an obligation to the Federal Government for the protection of national secrets. Accordingly failure to honor other obligations to the Government has a direct bearing on an applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.”).