PSH-25-0122

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under
5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: May 16, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0122
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 20, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual holds access authorization in connection with his employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 In December 2024, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP). Ex. 6 at 22–64. In the December 2024 QNSP, the Individual
indicated that he had not filed his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2022 and 2023. Id. at
57. The LSO issued to the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), to which he submitted a
response in January 2025 (January 2025 LOI Response). See Ex. 5 at 18–20. In his January 2025
LOI Response, the Individual reconfirmed he had not filed his tax returns for tax years 2022 and
2023. Id. at 18–19.
Due to the unresolved security concerns associated with his failure to file his tax returns, the LSO
suspended the Individual’s clearance and, in April 2025, informed the Individual in a Notification
Letter that it possessed reliable information creating substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as “access authorization” or “security clearance.”
2 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in
the top right corner of each exhibit page.
2
hold a security clearance. Ex. 1 at 6–7. In an attachment to the letter entitled Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under
Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10–11. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an
administrative review hearing. The LSO submitted seven numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–7) into the
record. The Individual submitted eight exhibits in eight separate PDF files (Ex. A–H).3 The
Individual testified on his own behalf. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0122
(hereinafter cited as “Tr.”) at 3. The LSO called no witnesses. Id. at 6.
II. NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5.
“Failure 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. Among the conditions set forth in this guideline
that could raise a disqualifying security concern is the “failure to file . . . annual [f]ederal, state, or
local income tax returns or failure to pay annual [f]ederal, state, or local income tax as required[.]”
Id. at ¶ 19(f). The SSC cited the Individual’s failure to file 2022 and 2023 federal and state tax
returns. Ex. 1 at 5. The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline F.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
3 References to the Individual’s exhibits are to the exhibit letter and the PDF page number.
3
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Individual’s Background and Failure to File Timely Tax Returns for Tax Years 2017,
2019, 2020, and 2021
The Individual consistently held employment since turning 18 and consistently filed annual tax
returns when he started working. Tr. at 45; Ex. 6 at 26 (QNSP indicating that the Individual’s birth
year was 1989 and thus indicating he would have become an adult in 2007). The Individual has
held a security clearance since 2008. Ex. 6 at 54–55. The documentary record includes QNSPs
previously submitted in August 2013 and October 2018. Ex. 7 at 80–129, 177–216. The August
2013 and October 2018 QNSPs both contain the following question: “[i]n the past seven (7) years
have you failed to file or pay [f]ederal, state or other taxes when required by law or ordinance?”—
to which the Individual responded, “No[.]” Ex. 7 at 123, 210 (formatting in original).
Contemporaneous with this period, the Individual married his wife in 2014, and his wife started a
business in 2016. Tr. at 24; Ex. 6 at 41 (QNSP showing marriage date). The Individual testified
that, prior to tax year 2017, he understood that he was required to file annual tax returns. Tr. at 47.
The Individual testified that for tax year 2017 he stopped filing timely annual returns because
another employee with the DOE contractor informed him, “hey, if you’re due a refund, you have
up to three years [to file].” Id. at 45–46, 54.4 The Individual believed the employee was a “CPA”
or a Certified Public Accountant. Id. at 47–48. However, the Individual could not recall if the
coworker ever referred to himself as a CPA. Id. at 48. In 2019, the Individual filed his tax returns
for tax years 2017 and 2018. Id. at 54; Ex. 5 at 20. The Individual provided no specificity regarding
the date on which he filed his 2018 tax return in 2019. Thus, he may have filed the 2018 tax return
timely. The Individual failed to file his 2019 and 2020 tax returns timely. Ex. 5 at 20. The
Individual late filed them in 2022. Id.
The Individual failed to file his 2021 tax returns timely. Id. In 2024, the Individual approached
another purported CPA for assistance with filing his 2021 tax return. Tr. at 48. According to the
Individual, some friends recommended the person as “a really good business CPA.” Id. At the
hearing, the Individual testified that he “just assumed” that the person who he consulted about his
2021 tax returns was a CPA. Id. at 49. According to the Individual, this “CPA” gave him the same
advice as the coworker—that he only had to file tax returns within three years when due a refund.
Id. at 45–46, 49. In 2024, the Individual, through the purported CPA, filed his 2021 tax returns.
Id. at 49.
b. 2024 QNSP; January 2025 LOI Response; and Failure to File Timely Tax Returns for
Tax Years 2022, 2023, and 2024
In December 2024, the Individual submitted a QNSP, stating that he had not filed his 2022 and
2023 tax returns for the following reasons:
4 During the hearing, the Individual admitted that, when completing the August 2018 QNSP, he should have reported
that he had not filed his 2017 tax return. Tr. at 55–56.
4
I’ve usually file[d] my taxes every 2 years since I always get a refund. I have my
employers withhold the maximum amount so that I can get a large refund when I
file.
. . . .
Like mentioned above, I have employers withhold the maximum[,] so I always get
large refunds when I file. I owe $0 in [f]ederal and state taxes. They owe me a
refund[,] but I have not filed.
Ex. 6 at 57–58.
In his January 2025 LOI Response, he similarly provided the following:
I have consistently received . . . refund[s] when filing my personal income tax
because I have my employers withhold the maximum amount possible. Based on
guidance from my CPA, I understand that I have up to three years to file my
personal income tax for a refund. For the past eight years, I’ve filed my taxes in
bulk when I require the funds from my refunds.
. . . .
I apologize and was unaware that my clearance could be in jeopardy for not filing
taxes for a refund. I was under the impression that so long as I file for my refund
within 3 years, I was OK. I want to state that I do not owe federal or state tax[es]
for 2022 or 2023, because I always purposely overpay throughout each year to
ensure I get a refund when I file my taxes. To back my claim, I can provide
information on my filings schedule going back 8 years. I’m willing to file 2022 &
2023 Federal and State Income Tax ASAP to provide proof that I don’t owe taxes
and will get a refund.
Ex. 5 at 18–20.
The Individual submitted, as documentary evidence, federal tax account transcripts evincing that
he and his wife jointly filed their 2022 and 2023 tax returns on April 14, 2025, and May 26, 2025,
respectively. Ex. A at 1; Ex. B at 1. He also submitted a screenshot from the state tax authority’s
website reflecting that his state tax returns for tax years 2022 and 2023 were filed on March 18,
2025, and April 22, 2025, respectively. Ex. D at 1.
The Individual likely late-filed his 2024 federal and state tax returns on April 22, 2025. Ex. H at 1
(email from the purported “CPA” to the Individual, dated April 17, 2025, requesting that the
Individual upload documentation for his tax filings). The Individual believes he had not requested
an extension to late file for these returns, operating under the impression that he had not late filed
5
per the “CPA’s” advice. Tr. at 31 (“I’m only required to file an extension . . . , per the CPA, if I
am going to owe the government money.”).5
c. The Letter from the Purported CPA and the Individual’s Related Testimony
The Individual submitted, as documentary evidence, a letter from his “CPA” dated September
2025. Ex. G. Notably, the author of the letter makes no reference to himself as a “CPA”—but only
as (1) an “EA” or enrolled agent and (2) a “[l]icensed [t]ax [p]ractioner.” Id. at 1; see also Ex. H
at 1 (email from the person also representing himself as a “Tax Accountant”); Tr. at 49 (the
Individual’s testimony that he was “[p]retty sure [the person was] a CPA” but acknowledging that
“it’s not in his letterhead or his title” on Exhibit G). It is unclear what license this professional
purports to have. Throughout the hearing, the Individual referred to the author of Exhibit G as a
“CPA” despite the lack of support in the record confirming that he had this specific certification.
See, e.g., Tr. at 49. Accordingly, I, hereinafter, refer to the person who authored Exhibit G as
simply a “Tax Preparer.”6
In the letter, the Tax Preparer states the following:
Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6012(a), a taxpayer is required to file an
income tax return only if their gross income meets or exceeds the applicable filing
threshold. In situations where a taxpayer has sufficient federal income tax
withholdings or refundable credits to cover their liability, they may not be legally
required to file a timely return.
However, pursuant to IRC § 6511(a), any claim for a federal income tax refund
must generally be filed within three years from the original due date of the return
(without extensions). If a return is not filed within that three-year period, the refund
may be forfeited, regardless of the taxpayer’s withholding status.
In this case, [the Individual] technically had sufficient withholdings and therefore
was not strictly required to file on time; he nevertheless filed on time in order to
preserve his right to a refund. This ensured compliance with federal law and
allowed him to receive any refunds due.
Ex. G at 1.
This letter misstates and conflates several requirements and concepts. First, generally, by the text
of 26 U.S.C. § 6012, an individual making over a certain gross income threshold—a value that is
5 The documentary evidence provided demonstrates that the Individual has been owed a tax refund in each of the last
three tax years. Ex. A at 1 (2022 IRS Account transcript reflecting a refund of $46,810); Ex. B at 1 (2023 IRS Account
transcript reflecting a refund of $28,034); Ex. C at 1 (2024 IRS Account transcript reflecting a refund of $8,735); Ex.
D at 1 (screenshot from state tax authority’s website reflecting refunds issued for $3,909; $3,223; and $1,474 in tax
years 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively).
6 The Individual also provided testimony evincing he relied on the Tax Preparer’s interpretation of the tax code. See
Tr. at 32. However, he acknowledged that the Tax Preparer was not a lawyer. Id. at 32–33. As I explain further later
in this Decision, the Tax Preparer provided an unsupported interpretation of the statutes cited in Exhibit G.
6
often not high—must file an annual tax return. This is a legal obligation entirely related to the
amount of one’s gross income and entirely unrelated to the withholdings in a taxpayer’s regular
paychecks. See generally 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (lacking any mention of “withholdings”). The
withholdings in one’s paychecks to satisfy tax obligations are distinct from one’s gross income.
Furthermore—independent of the legal obligation to file annual tax returns by their due date—a
taxpayer generally cannot claim a refund of their tax overpayments from their withholdings when
they file their claim for the refund more than three years outside the filing deadline. 26 U.S.C. §
6511. That one has three years to claim their refund from tax overpayments from withholdings
does not eliminate the original filing deadline for tax returns. Accordingly, that the Individual
made, in the Tax Preparer’s words, “sufficient withholdings” has no bearing on the Individual’s
legal requirement to file tax returns on time every year.
This misinformation and misunderstanding appeared in various documentary evidence provided
by the Individual. See supra Section II(b). For example, the Individual repeatedly made statements
indicating that he sincerely believed that his obligation to file annual tax returns only stemmed
from his status as a clearance holder: “I misunderstood my obligations as a clearance holder
regarding the requirements on filing tax[ ] [returns] . . . . I was under the impression that so long
as I was adhering to [federal] and [state] filing guidelines, I was in compliance . . . .” Ex. 2 at 11
(Individual’s request for a hearing dated April 27, 2025) (emphasis added).
This misunderstanding—specifically, the belief that he had no legal obligation to file his tax
returns annually and was only required to do so as a clearance holder—persisted up until the day
of the hearing, as evinced by the following exchange:
Q. Okay. But in 2025, so this year you were on notice that you had to file your
[2024] tax[ ] [returns] on time?
A. 2025, that is correct.
Q. And you filed [ ] your tax[ ] [returns] for 2024 . . . on April 22[, 2025,] which is
late?
A. I guess late for you guys [the DOE], yes, but for the feds [IRS], I got a refund in
2024.
Tr. at 32 (emphasis added).
By the end of the hearing, it appeared that the Individual’s understanding as to his legal obligation
to file annual tax returns had shifted. For example, when asked to explain how the federal
government is supposed to know what taxes are owed on income made through self-employment
without the filing of a tax return—the Individual answered, “I guess that’s what I learned through
this process . . . the [ ] government doesn’t actually have any data until I submit my information.”
Id. at 58. The Individual then acknowledged that his “wife was technically self-employed” and
that he was “putting her in a bad situation because the government didn’t know whether or not she
owed [taxes] or didn’t owe until [he] actually filed.” Id. at 58–59.
For further context, the Individual’s wife started her own part-time business in 2016 and left her
day job in 2022 to pursue full-time self-employment. Id. at 24. The Individual testified that, when
he stopped filing annual returns in tax year 2017 and started late filing his returns, his wife “was
7
completely against” this approach. Id. at 50–51. In his own words, “[s]he used to work at [the
Department of] Tax and Revenue for [the state]” and told him, “I’ve never heard of anybody doing
their taxes this late[ ], after the deadline.” Id. at 50. In the first few tax years that the Individual
failed to file tax returns, the Individual stated his wife would remind him of their tax obligations
either monthly or quarterly. Id. at 51–52. The frequency of her complaints at some point lessened
but then again increased to “once a month in 2022 and 2023” since she wanted to understand if
“she broke even for the business.” Id. The Individual expressed regret that he had not listened to
his wife. Id.
At the hearing, he expressed that he intended to meet his tax filing obligations in the future by
submitting all his documentation to the same Tax Preparer and to have him file prior to April 15
every year. Id. at 39–41. The Individual indicated that if this Tax Preparer told him that he could
not file by April 15 every year, then he would either go to a H&R Block or request an extension
with the tax authorities. Id. at 41–42.
V. ANALYSIS
Conditions that could mitigate a security concern under Guideline F include:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, 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 judgment;
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from
a legitimate and credible source . . . ; and there are clear indications that the problem
is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts;
(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;
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income;
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or
pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
As a preliminary matter, the cited security concerns are for the Individual’s failure to file his
federal and state tax returns from tax years 2022 and 2023. Accordingly, mitigating conditions (d),
8
(e), and (f) lack application since the cited security concerns do not involve overdue or unresolved
debts or unexplained affluence.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the behavior—taking no action to file his 2022 and 2023
federal and state tax returns—occurred starting in April 2023 and continued up until April 2025,
only five months prior to the hearing. Furthermore, this behavior apparently occurred previously
when, according to the Individual’s own admission, he late filed his 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2021
tax returns. I cannot find this behavior to have occurred “infrequently” or “so long ago.”
The circumstance under which this behavior occurred—essentially the Individual’s mistaken
belief that tax returns did not need to be filed annually—resulted from the faulty advice he received
from people that he also believed to be CPAs. This is a circumstance that is no longer present, as
the Individual now understands his obligation to file tax returns on an annual basis. However, I
must also consider the totality of the circumstances, including factors cited by 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c),
such as “[t]he nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the
conduct . . . ; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at
the time of the conduct; [and] the absence or presence of . . . pertinent behavioral changes . . . .”
That the Individual started late filing tax returns well into his adulthood and after about a decade
of filing annual returns timely reflects poorly on his judgment and reliability. The Individual may
have received misinformation; however, his own prior understanding of his legal obligations with
respect to his taxes and his wife’s protestations should have given the Individual pause upon
receiving that advice and raise questions as to his judgment. This behavior continued for tax years
2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024—a frequency, duration, and recency that weighs
against him. I also find that the Individual’s continued reference to these two individuals as
“CPAs”—without any critical interrogation into their professional qualifications—reflective of
poor judgment, insofar as the Individual failed to make an informed choice when taking their
advice. Though the Individual indicated he would file tax returns annually as a security clearance
holder, that the Individual, at the hearing, continued to misunderstand his legal obligation to file
annual returns concerns me. This continued misunderstanding reflected an ongoing lack of
judgment and reliability.
The Individual, by the end of the hearing, may have better understood that filing his tax returns
was a legal obligation; however, the Individual testified that he would continue using his “CPA”
despite the “CPA’s” contribution to the Individual’s misunderstanding and current security
clearance issues. The circumstances here, in total, reflect poor judgment and reliability. While the
Individual may file future tax returns on a timely basis—a supposition that I cannot verify given
that even his 2024 tax return was late filed—I must also consider that in other contexts the
Individual may again receive questionable advice from persons of questionable professional
experience. Considering that the Individual disregarded his own experience filing tax returns
annually, the advice of his wife who worked in a tax-related profession, and common knowledge
regarding annual tax filing obligations, and instead followed dubious advice without critically
evaluating the credentials and reputability of those offering it, I harbor doubts that the Individual
will exercise sound judgment and follow rules and regulations if presented with a more convenient
alternative. While the Individual’s failure to timely file tax returns presents only moderate security
concerns, the process by which the Individual formed his beliefs and his adherence to those beliefs
9
up to the date of the hearing enhance the seriousness of the concerns because of the doubts they
raise about his ability to carry out his responsibilities as a clearance holder more broadly. Given
the outlined circumstances and my ongoing concerns, mitigating condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), I cannot find that the conditions resulting in his financial
problem were “largely beyond” his control. The financial problem, specifically the non-filing of
his tax returns, resulted from his decision to follow the faulty advice he received from two “CPAs.”
The Individual could have chosen not to follow the advice of these “CPAs.” I also cannot find the
Individual “acted responsibly” for the same reasons I found that he exercised poor judgment, as
stated in the prior paragraph. Mitigating condition (b) does not apply.
No evidence was put forth regarding financial counseling, and I cannot find that mitigating
condition (c) applies.
Regarding mitigating condition (g), the Individual has submitted proof that he has filed the tax
returns at issue with the appropriate tax authorities. I have corroborating documentation that the
federal and state tax authorities have received the tax returns for tax years 2022 and 2023 and that
the returns are considered filed. I also have supporting documentation that he overpaid for the tax
years in question and does not owe tax liability.
Although the Individual has established the applicability of mitigating condition (g), the
Adjudicative Guidelines provide that the mitigating conditions “could” mitigate security concerns
under Guideline F, not that they necessarily do so in every case. Id. at ¶ 20 (formatting omitted).
In applying the mitigating conditions, I have been guided by regulatory considerations set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), as outlined above in my discussion of mitigating condition (a). Again, the
totality of the circumstances weigh against him. As stated above, the following leads me to believe
there exist ongoing issues with the Individual’s judgment and reliability: (1) the Individual heeded
the faulty advice of “CPAs” without any critical interrogation into the advice or the qualifications
of the “CPAs” despite a decade of experience of filing tax returns timely and over his own wife’s
protests; (2) the Individual repeatedly failed to file timely tax returns over an extended period for
tax years 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024; (3) the Individual, at the hearing, failed
to appreciate that filing his tax returns was a legal obligation and not just an obligation derived
from holding a clearance; (4) the Individual testified he would continue using the “CPA” who
provided the faulty advice; and (5) the Individual, in other contexts, may heed unconventional
advice conflicting with his legal and financial obligations, as well as rules and regulations. I find
that the Individual’s filing of his delinquent tax returns is insufficient to resolve the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline F.
As such, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns raised under Guideline F.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
10
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns.
Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals