ISCR Case No. 24-01117

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 15, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On August 4, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Bryan J. Olmos denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Discussion Applicant, in his mid-30s, was married in June 2015, separated in 2017, and divorced in December 2018. He has two children from this marriage and shares joint custody with his ex- spouse. Applicant seeks national security eligibility for his employment with a government contractor, for whom he has worked since October 2022. The SOR alleges security concerns arising from Applicant’s failure to file his federal and state income tax returns for tax years (TY) 2017 and 2018 and his indebtedness for delinquent state taxes. The Judge found for Applicant concerning his delinquent state taxes, and the facts and analysis surrounding that allegation will not be discussed further. Applicant does not challenge any of the findings of facts on appeal. Rather, he argues that the Judge “did not adequately explain why the extensive mitigating evidence acknowledged in the decision failed to satisfy the requirements of the Adjudicative Guidelines and the Whole-Person Concept.” Appeal Brief at 1. For the following reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we affirm the Judge’s decision. Applicant filed his TY 2017 and 2018 federal and state tax returns shortly after his December 2025 hearing and set up a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service in May 2026, with payments to begin in July 2026. Concluding that none of the mitigating conditions applied, the Judge explained: It cannot be said that [Applicant’s] tax difficulties happened long ago as his tax returns were not filed until December 2025 and he did not enter a payment plan to resolve the debt until May 2026. He has not taken responsible action to meet his tax obligations as required. Decision at 10. Within the Whole-Person analysis, the Judge concluded that, “given the extent that [Applicant] allowed these issues to remain unresolved, he has not established a sufficient track record of tax compliance to mitigate the security concerns for financial considerations.” Id. at 11. The Judge articulated satisfactory explanations for his conclusions grounded in well-settled Appeal Board caselaw within the Guideline F and Whole-Person analyses. Although Applicant frames his appeal as challenging the adequacy of the Judge’s explanations, these arguments, in fact, advocate for an alternative weighing of the evidence. His disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or his ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 04-08975, 2006 WL 2725032 at *1 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006). Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge examined the relevant evidence, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). 2 Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-01117 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 3