KEYWORDS: Financial; Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant did not file any federal or state income tax returns between 2000 and 2005.
Also, he failed to pay his 1993 state income taxes on time, for which a lien was filed against his
property in 2000. Although he filed the delinquent tax returns approximately a year ago, and has
been making payments toward the satisfaction of the 1993 income tax delinquency for the past six
months, it is too soon to conclude that he has mitigated the financial considerations and personal
conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 05-13036.h1
DATE: 05/30/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-13036
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
SYNOPSIS
Exhibit G, Reference Letter of Applicant’s Supervisor, dated April 10, 2007.1
Exhibit 3, Response to Interrogatories, dated February 6, 2006, at 4.2
2
Applicant did not file any federal or state income tax returns between 2000 and 2005. Also,
he failed to pay his 1993 state income taxes on time, for which a lien was filed against his property
in 2000. Although he filed the delinquent tax returns approximately a year ago, and has been making
payments toward the satisfaction of the 1993 income tax delinquency for the past six months, it is
too soon to conclude that he has mitigated the financial considerations and personal conduct security
concerns. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 21, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated
February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended.
Applicant answered the SOR on January 29, 2007, admitting the allegations, and requesting a
hearing.
The case was assigned to me on March 12, 2007. I convened a hearing on April 17, 2007.
During the hearing, I received nine government exhibits, 10 Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s
testimony. At Applicant’s request, I left the record open through May 4, 2007 to allow him to submit
additional exhibits. That day, he submitted one additional exhibit, which I marked and received as
Exhibit K. DOHA received the transcript on May 8, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The SOR admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. In addition, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 38-year-old man with a 13-year-old child. He is a mail room supervisor who
oversees four employees and manages two mail rooms. He is well respected at work. According to
his boss, he “exhibited integrity and honesty in the performance of his duty.”  He has performed mail1
room work for 16 years.
In 1993, Applicant failed to pay his state income taxes. In 2000, the state government
obtained a lien against his property in the amount of $4,026. In approximately December 2005, the
government propounded interrogatories to Applicant requesting, among other things, that he provide
verification of any payments made toward the satisfaction of the lien. As of February 2006, when
he responded to the interrogatories, he had made no payments.  He initiated payments in December2
Exhibit B, Payment Receipts dated December 15, 2006, March 12, 20076, April 7, 2007; Exhibit K, Payment3
Receipt dated May 4, 2007.
Answer, dated January 29, 2007, at 1.4
Tr. 24.5
Exhibit C, Payment Receipts, dated May 6, 2005, December 15, 2006, and March 12, 2007.6
See Tax Returns as Listed in Exhibit 3, Response to Interrogatories, at 13 through 24.7
Tr. 30; Exhibit A, Receipt of Payments.8
Tr. 35.9
Tr. 26.10
Answer at 9.11
Exhibit D, Letter from Creditor to Applicant, dated August 24, 2006.12
3
2006. Since then, he has made four payments of $125 each.  There is no record evidence that sets3
forth the amount of the remaining balance.
Applicant lived in one jurisdiction from 1999 to 2002 (State 1). He moved to an adjacent
state in late 2002, where he lived through 2004 (State 2). He did not file his state income tax returns
for either state.  In 2005, he filed the back income tax returns. He owed no income taxes to State 1,4
but owed approximately $1,400 in delinquent income taxes to State 2 for tax year 2004.  Since May5
2005, he has made three payments totaling $385 toward this delinquency.6
Applicant did not file his federal income tax returns from 1999 to 2005. In February 2006,
he filed returns for tax years 1999 through 2001, and 2003 through 2005.  It is unclear from the7
record whether he ever filed for tax year 2002. He owes approximately $14,000 in back federal
income taxes, and has made ten payments since June 2006 ranging from $200 to $800.  8
Applicant’s failure to file his income tax returns roughly coincided with his separation from
his girlfriend. After she obtained custody of their son, Applicant was afraid that he could no longer
report him as a dependent for the purposes of a deduction, which could conceivably have resulted
in him owing money.  9
In 2002, Applicant and his ex-girlfriend sought to formalize their agreement for him to pay
child support. He was given the option of making bimonthly payments through the court, or having
his wages garnished bimonthly. He chose the latter option.  He has never been delinquent. As of10
May 2006, he had overpaid in the amount of $63.00.11
As of March 2006, Applicant owed a creditor $391 for a delinquent phone bill. He satisfied
it in August 2006.12
Tr. 42.13
Answer at 1.14
Tr. 42.15
Tr. 38.16
4
Currently, Applicant has approximately $150 remaining each month after expenses.  He has13
invested $6,000 in a 401k.
Applicant used marijuana approximately eight times in 1998. That summer, he was arrested
and charged with possession of marijuana.  Following his completion of community service and14
some Alcoholics Anonymous sessions, the charges were dropped. He has not smoked marijuana
since 1998.15
In August 2004, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF-86). He did not
disclose  the 2000 tax lien as required by Question 36 (Your Financial Record - Tax Lien - In the past
7 years, have you had a lien placed against your property for failing to pay taxes or other debts?).
At the hearing, he testified that he was unaware of the lien when he completed the SF-86.16
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline,
they are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny or revoke an
individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions) and those that
may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access to classified
information (mitigating conditions).
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the
nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency
of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to
which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the
consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the
circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.
The following adjudicative guidelines are raised:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Guideline H - Drug Involvement: Improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises
questions regarding an individual’s willingness or ability to protect classified
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.17
5
information. Drug abuse or dependence may impair social or occupational functioning.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified information.
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions17
that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that have
been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the government, and has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
Applicant's child support payment history does not represent a security concern. However,
his failure to pay his 1993 state income tax, and failure to file his state and federal taxes for six
consecutive years between 1999 and 2005, in conjunction with his accrual of a delinquent phone bill
triggers the application of Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1
(A history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.2 (Deceptive or illegal
financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense
account fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and other intentional breaches of trust).
I have considered all of the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. Applicant
deserves credit for satisfying his phone bill, and filing his back returns. However, he filed his income
tax returns less than two years ago after failing to file any for the previous six years, and his
payments toward the satisfaction of the delinquencies have been sporadic. Moreover, he still owes
in excess of $17,000 of back federal and local taxes, including his 1993 income tax delinquency. He
has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
Drug Involvement
Applicant’s past marijuana involvement triggers the application of Drug Involvement
Disqualifying Condition (DI DC) E2.A8.1.2.1 (Any drug abuse), and DI DC E2.A8.1.2.2. (Illegal
In the last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production,18
transfer, shipping, receiving, or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, or cannabis for your own
intended profit or that of another?
6
drug possession). He has not used any marijuana since his arrest nearly ten years ago. Drug
Involvement Mitigating Condition E2.A8.1.3.1 (The drug involvement was not recent), applies.
Applicant has mitigated the drug involvement security concern.
Personal Conduct
Applicant’s omission of information regarding his drug use, in tandem with his omission of
the 2000 tax lien from his 2004 SF-86 raises the issue of whether Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2 (The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar
form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities)
applies. Applicant neither purchased nor sold marijuana for his profit or as part of a wider criminal
enterprise. PC DC 2 is inapplicable to Question 29.18
With respect to Question 36, PC DC 2 applies without mitigation. Given Applicant’s history
of failing to file his income taxes, his contention that he was unaware of an outstanding tax lien was
not credible.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant’s drug use no longer poses a security concern. He appears to be financially stable
enough to implement and sustain a payment plan to resolve his income taxes. However, his
repayment of the tax delinquencies has been sporadic and disorganized. I also remain concerned with
his explanation for choosing not to file income tax returns on time, and his falsification of his SF-86.
Upon considering these facts in conjunction with the whole person concept, I conclude Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns. Clearance is denied.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d-1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2 - Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: For Applicant
7
Paragraph 3 - Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge