Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00973 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/22/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple, Esq.
Judge: Charles C. Hale
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-00973, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00973denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00973

deniedMay 22, 2026· Hon. Charles C. Hale· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 57-year-old electrical design engineer and former U.S. Army Reserve member, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant tax-related issues, including over $92,000 in federal tax debt and failure to file multiple tax returns. Despite efforts to address her tax obligations, the judge found that the applicant's long history of neglect and reliance on tax preparers undermined her credibility and responsibility, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of failing to meet federal and state tax obligations, including unfiled tax returns for multiple years.
The applicant admitted to having significant tax debts and acknowledged her responsibility for not ensuring timely filing of her taxes.
The applicant's reliance on tax preparers was deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's efforts to address her tax debts were not sufficient to mitigate the disqualifying conditions.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 9, 2025
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 2, 2026per applicant's request for expedited hearing
Decision dateMay 22, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Tax-related Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Long-term Financial Neglect on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Concerns Despite Efforts to Address 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 under Guideline F, primarily related to the applicant's significant unpaid federal and state tax debts, as well as failures to file tax returns for several years. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations, citing a history of not meeting financial obligations and failure to file taxes as key disqualifying factors.

1.a failed to timely file, as required, state income tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Filing Failure
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000
$92,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.c alleged delinquent state tax debt is over $26,000
$26,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.d–1.e 2 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)
Finding: Against Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.f alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000
$92,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.g failed to timely file, as required, Federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Filing Failure
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.h alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000
$92,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.i specific text not stated in this decision
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.j alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000
$92,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.k–1.n 4 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)
Finding: Against Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.o alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000
$92,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.p–1.q 2 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)
Finding: Against Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failed to timely file, as required, state income tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 $92,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	alleged delinquent state tax debt is over $26,000 $26,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.e	2 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.f	alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 $92,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	failed to timely file, as required, Federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.h	alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 $92,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 $92,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k–1.n	4 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.o	alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 $92,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p–1.q	2 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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

DECISION

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS A

STATEMENT OF CASE

D APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00973 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Nicholas T. Temple, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: John G. Horan, Esq. 05/22/2026 Decision HALE, Charles C., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on February 29, 2024. On October 9, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DoD acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defen

FINDINGS OF FACT

e Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016). Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on February 26, 2026, and the case was assigned to me on March 2, 2026. On March 24, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that per her request for an expedited hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 7 were admitted in evidence without objection.

Applicant testified and presented testimony from one witness. Applicant Exhibits (AE) A1 through A5 were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on April 13, 2026. The record was held open until April 30, 2026. Applicant timely submitted two character letters, one from a retired law enforcement officer and the other from a minister, which were marked AE B and C respectively and admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 57-year-old mother of two adult children. She served honorably the United States Army Reserve for six years and currently works as electrical design engineer for her sponsor. She earned her engineering degree in 1993 and holds a master’s in business administration, which she earned in 2007. She worked for a major city from 1994 to 2000 and returned for a second time from 2016 to 2021 as a city engineer. In the intervening years she worked for a defense contractor as an engineer. She has also worked as a realtor. (GE 1; Tr. 32-35, 42, 65.) During Applicant’s thirty years in the workforce, she not only provided for her children but also provided support to her nieces and nephews. Her children’s father was not financially responsible because he was unstable and could not maintain a job. She also raised his son from another relationship. She divorced him in June 2025, which was a three-year process. She now lives with her mom and helps her with the bills. At one point during the divorce process, she moved in with her daughter and assisted with bills, renovations, and the repairs of the HVAC system to her daughter’s recently purchased home. (Tr. 37-43.) The SOR alleges seventeen tax-related allegations dealing with failure to timely file and/or pay Federal and state i ncome taxes (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.q). Applicant’s alleged delinquent Federal tax debt is over $92,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j-1.o). Her alleged delinquent state tax debt is over $26,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1,e, 1.i, 1.p-1.q). She failed to timely file, as required, Federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017 (SOR ¶ 1.g) and she failed to timely file, as required, state income tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 (SOR ¶ 1.a). She had previously held a security clearance in 2011, which had been suspended because of a delinquent credit card debt. She had disclosed the early alleged tax years, 2007-2009, and that she was on a state repayment plan, which was different from the ones addressed on the SOR. (Tr. 77-78, 80.) At the hearing she affirmed that to her knowledge all Federal and state returns had been filed. (Tr. 71; AE A1-A5.) Applicant stated she had reached out to the respective agencies to address her Federal and state tax issues. She took off work to sit in their offices to establish what documents the agencies had. During this process she identified two preparers who she thought may have prepared tax returns for some of the years in question. (Tr. 43-44.) She stated the reason she did not file tax returns for the years in question was: I feel like I didn’t fail to file, I did not file because I trusted that they would be filed by others. I was notified many years after -- so, for instance, for 2009, 2

I was notified in 2016 or 2017 from the IRS. I received a letter that stated that my 2009 was not filed and I had 10 days to have someone do a return for me because they had prepared a return on my behalf. So, naturally, I reached out to somebody that was a tax preparer and said, hey, I need this tax return prepared because they don’t know what deductions I might have. They just did a straightforward return and in the process of doing that, I was, like, and if you know if you can see in the system any other tax years that I have not -- that they have in the system that are not filed, can you get those prepared for me. (Tr. 45.) Applicant and her husband filed married filing separately. (Tr. 78-79.) She testified she relied on her mother-in-law to prepare her taxes, stating: I was engaged [to] my husband, my later husband. His mom had a -- she’s a CPA. She had a tax preparation business, so I relied on her to help me get my taxes done. That extended into our marriage and one of the issues that came up was I was a head of household and then I became married filing separately. What she would always state was you all need to do something about this married filing separately because it’s causing you to owe more than you probably should. I would ask her all the time, well did you get your son’s information so that you could file. She was like, yes, I’m working on it. We’ll get this done. I just never really challenged that it wasn’t being done. I just -- I just trusted that it was going to be done. (Tr. 46.) Applicant acknowledged that over a period of at least 15 years or so, she had failed to meet her state and Federal tax obligations, stating, “Yes, on and off through those 15 years.” (Tr. 70.) She agreed it was her responsibility to make sure her taxes were filed. (Tr. 71.) She became aware of the problem when the IRS informed her that her 2009 tax return had not been submitted. She took the notice to another preparer and asked the preparer to see what years were missing. She thought this preparer did multiple returns for her. (Tr. 46-47.) She then relied on another preparer for other returns during the time she was working as realtor. She was generally aware that given her self-employment status her return would be more complicated since she needed to take business deductions. She stated she relied on the word of the preparer that the taxes were filed. She recalled receiving folders with the tax documents in them, but because she moved and she no longer has access to everything she had when she was living with her husband. She has contacted the tax preparer, and they are “digging to see” if they can find the years in question. (Tr. 47-48.) What she submitted with her Answer to the SOR was she could find. (Tr. 49; Answer.) When asked whose obligation it was to file her Federal and state tax returns when filing married filing separately, she stated: It was my obligation to get them filed. My tax preparer at that time was my husband’s mother and she did tell us all the time, you all need to file married filing joint, she said, because I can save you all a whole lot of money if you 3

would file jointly. My ex-husband had a property management company, and his tenants would sue him for security deposits or his landlords might sue him for maintenance and stuff like that, it’s kind of like a routine thing. It’s nothing really that property management companies don’t go through, but he felt that if he filed jointly with me and somebody sued him, then I would [be] paying a part of his responsibilities. We felt that temporarily, we agreed okay, we can do it that way because when he first started the business, he was having more issues than after he had had it for a while. After things were going much smoother, I was like okay, it’s time to do the joint filings now. I used to bring that up all the time. (Tr. 79-80.) Applicant admitted not filing her state tax returns in four of seven years alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, 2007, 2009, 2016, and 2017. She denied other years on the basis they had been filed, and she submitted documents with her Answer to support her denial. She included her installment agreement with her state to address her state tax debt of over $26,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1,e, 1.i, 1.p-1.q) with her Answer. She stated she was current on her payments under installment agreement. (Tr. 56-58; AE A4.) She estimated her tax debt with her state was now about $8,000 down from $12,000 and that after her November tax bill her state debt was “pretty much under control.” (Tr. 54, 58; AE A4.) Concerning Applicant’s Federal tax debts, SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j-1.o, Applicant in her Answer stated: I ADMIT I have this debt. I’m fulfilling my obligation to pay this tax debt. The IRS has combined all the unpaid tax debt amounts into one payment plan which is currently being collected monthly in the amount of $1000/mo. I have paid timely as per the payment agreement due dates. The Federal tax years included in this payment agreement are 2009, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023. Tax years not included in this repayment agreement were refund years or already fully paid in full. I’ve attached a copy of the payment agreement. (Answer.) and added for SOR ¶ 1.o that: Additionally, in 2024 I paid $10,000.00 towards all years included in the tax lien that was on my file and

an additional $7,800.00 to get below the tax debt limit to qualify for a payment agreement which I currently pay $1,000.00 monthly. At the hearing Applicant addressed her delinquent Federal tax debt, SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j-1.o, stating: Currently, with my tax obligations, it started off really high. I wasn’t aware of the $100,000, when [Department Co

POLICIES

nsel] said that, I was surprised. When I went into the IRS, they told me I was at about $65,000 to $66,000 dollars in debt, so I asked them is there a possibility for me to do a payment 4

arrangement. I said can I make a payment and then do a payment arrangement and she said your payment in order to do an installment plan would have to bring your debt below $45,000 dollars. So, I made an initial payment, I think, of $10,000 then I made another one of $7,500 and then I made another payment and then they allowed me to do $1,000 dollars a month. I’m currently at about $34,000 in debt to the IRS. (Tr. 52-53.) Applicant submitted an IRS Installment Agreement, Payment History and Payoff Calculator with her Answer. (AE A2; Tr. 55-56.) Her IRS correspondence was dated July 15, 2024, where she requested a direct debit installment agreement. This was the time she had reached out to the IRS about setting up that repayment plan. Prior to that she had been working with a tax advocate, which occurred before joining her sponsor. She estimated that she was working with the tax advocate around the end of 2023. Her reason for engaging a tax advocate was she wanted to travel, and her passport could not be renewed because of her Federal tax debt. She acknowledged this was “the wake-up call” to resolve her tax situation. (Tr. 74-76.) Regarding the unfiled Federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017 (SOR ¶ 1.g), Applicant stated in her Answer: I ADMIT I did not file Federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017, or that the tax return remains unfiled. I hired a tax preparation firm, [TPF], to file 2016-2020 taxes on my behalf. I paid them and assumed all tax years were prepared and completed. I have requested that the tax preparer provide proof of filing and receipt by the government agencies. I haven’t received the requested information in full as of the time of this answer submission. (Answer.) When asked again if she was sure these Federal tax returns for 2016 and 2017 had been filed, she stated, “these are the years that I have to verify with TPF… I'm not.” (Tr. 100- 101.) Applicant was asked, if her problem was relying on tax preparers to file, what was she going to do to make sure that these failures would not happen again. She stated: Well, I think the best thing to do is to [ask] if they e-file, I was told that once you e-file, you immediately receive a response back from the IRS and the state stating we’ve received your filing. No other tax preparer has ever informed me of that. I want that emailed to me as soon as they tell me they filed. (Tr. 63.) Applicant offered an April 1, 2026 credit report. She offered it to show the balances on her credit cards were much lower than what had been reflected on the Government’s credit reports and “that anything that was in the Statement of Reasons has been taken off,

ANALYSIS

paid off.” Her state had filed tax liens against her in 2014, 2015, and 2017 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1,e, 1.i), and the IRS filed a $28,347 tax lien (SOR ¶ 1.o) against her as well in 2024. 5

She established a payment agreement with the state on November 10, 2025, with her first payment due on December 15, 2025. She obtained Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on July 2, 2025, in the amount of $23,649. While she is not a “fan” of auto pay, she put her debts on auto pay. She had not received any formal financial counseling but had received some advice on investing and how to have her financial matters in order before investing. (Answer at pdf 10, 11; Tr. 59-60, 98; GE 6; GE 7; AE A5.) Applicant concluded her direct examination with: I would just like to say that I’m not trying to sit here and present myself as this perfect person that doesn’t make mistakes. I may have overextended myself in the past trying to satisfy some obligations that I felt I had to my family that may have caused me to pay something a little late, but I’ve never tried to skirt my responsibilities financially. I know that I exercise good judgment, I’m very reliable, very responsible. I’ve never had anything but very favorable reviews and in my evaluations over my engineering career and I do very well in my real estate career. I think it’s because I’m a pretty solid person. I have good character. I get along. I have great customer service and I’m the type of coworker or team player that we come to work, we do our jobs and we get along very well. I don’t have any issues in the workplace or in my personal business. I know that I found myself in this situation, it feels somewhat honestly, quite abruptly that all of this kind of fell on me even though it’s been accumulating over the years. I don’t know what to really attribute my not knowing specifically other than the fact that other people told me that things were okay and I really didn’t have it on my radar. As soon as I did find out, even though it was reactionary, I did everything I felt I needed to do as far as reaching out to the professionals to help me get things in order, find out what needed to be done. I went into the IRS agency and set up agreements and, like I said, any opportunity I get to pay those things down quicker, I’m trying to do. I live with my mom. It’s not my intention to stay in my mom’s household. I actually feel like she’s at the age, my mom is 79, she just turned 79 a couple of weeks ago and I just see that I’ll probably be the person who will be taking care of her. My goal is to get my finances in order so that I can purchase a home. Every home I’ve considered has a place for her and I know that we have family that could definitely use her residence for themselves, so it’s just my goal to get my finances in order so I can take care of my mom and be there for my family. That’s all I have. (Tr. 67-69.) In response to the question what prompted Applicant’s change given her “long period of inattention, neglect” toward her taxes she stated: I think mainly because I was -- in those 15 years, I think my focus was mainly on providing for people that depended on me, providing for my dependents. Like I said, I had six children in my household and my husband and I, we really were just trying to like get established and in a way where we weren’t 6

dependent on a job all the time. We were trying to do streams of income so I was very supportive of his efforts to -- like he started a pr

oject management company. He had a [food product delivery] route and he flips houses, so I was very supportive of those things because we talked about the end game being us having a w ay to have passive income. We talked about this stuff. I think the difference now is I’m not married because I just know that my marriage wasn’t horrible, but because of the financial disconnect, where I feel like I was taken advantage of, so I felt like I needed to break from that and take care of myself and that’s what the di fference is now. Now, it’s me taking care of myself. My children are adults. My daughter is 30, my son is 34. They have children, they have families, they have their own homes. They take care of themselves. They have decent jobs. So, I don’t have that feeling of if I don’t do it, it won’t get done. I know they’ll take care of themselves. So, now I have to take care of myself. My grandmother died at 96 in 2022 and I always think if I live as long as her, I need to put a lot of things in place now so that I can live a good life, so that’s all be heard, so that’s why I’m here. (Tr. 72-74.) Applicant presented testimony from a colleague, who was her manager under one of the

ANALYSIS

payment due on December 15, 2025. She obtained Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on July 2, 2025, in the amount of $23,649. While she is not a “fan” of auto pay, she put her debts on auto pay. She had not received any formal financial counseling but had received some advice on investing and how to have her financial matters in order before investing. (Answer at pdf 10, 11; Tr. 59-60, 98; GE 6; GE 7; AE A5.) Applicant concluded her direct examination with: I would just like to say that I’m not trying to sit here and present myself as this perfect person that doesn’t make mistakes. I may have overextended myself in the past trying to satisfy some obligations that I felt I had to my family that may have caused me to pay something a little late, but I’ve never tried to skirt my responsibilities financially. I know that I exercise good judgment, I’m very reliable, very responsible. I’ve never had anything but very favorable reviews and in my evaluations over my engineering career and I do very well in my real estate career. I think it’s because I’m a pretty solid person. I have good character. I get along. I have great customer service and I’m the type of coworker or team player that we come to work, we do our jobs and we get along very well. I don’t have any issues in the workplace or in my personal business. I know that I found myself in this situation, it feels somewhat honestly, quite abruptly that all of this kind of fell on me even though it’s been accumulating over the years. I don’t know what to really attribute my not knowing specifically other than the fact that other people told me that things were okay and I really didn’t have it on my radar. As soon as I did find out, even though it was reactionary, I did everything I felt I needed to do as far as reaching out to the professionals to help me get things in order, find out what needed to be done. I went into the IRS agency and set up agreements and, like I said, any opportunity I get to pay those things down quicker, I’m trying to do. I live with my mom. It’s not my intention to stay in my mom’s household. I actually feel like she’s at the age, my mom is 79, she just turned 79 a couple of weeks ago and I just see that I’ll probably be the person who will be taking care of her. My goal is to get my finances in order so that I can purchase a home. Every home I’ve considered has a place for her and I know that we have family that could definitely use her residence for themselves, so it’s just my goal to get my finances in order so I can take care of my mom and be there for my family. That’s all I have. (Tr. 67-69.) In response to the question what prompted Applicant’s change given her “long period of inattention, neglect” toward her taxes she stated: I think mainly because I was -- in those 15 years, I think my focus was mainly on providing for people that depended on me, providing for my dependents. Like I said, I had six children in my household and my husband and I, we really were just trying to like get established and in a way where we weren’t 6

dependent on a job all the time. We were trying to do streams of income so I was very supportive of his efforts to -- like he started a pr

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

contracts under which Applicant was originally hired. The witness described Applicant as a reliable and trusted employee who complied with company policies and demonstrated good judgment. She noted she had received positive feedback from their clients about Applicant. She stated that based on her observation as a supervisor, Applicant was compliant with company policies and regulations. (Tr. 24-30.) The character letters described her as “dependable, respectful, honest, and responsible” and that she “embodies high moral standards, honorable discretion, and impeccable judgment.” (AE B; AE C.) Policies “[N]o 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 applicants 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 § 2. 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, an administrative judge applies these guidelines 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 and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 7

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 that 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 made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance 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

FORMAL FINDINGS

isqualify 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. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a d

CONCLUSION

squalifying 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 burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31