DATE:  December 31, 2007
In Re:
---------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-26266
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Rita O’Brien, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s failure to timely file her Federal income tax returns for several years, the ensuing
delinquent debt, and her failure to disclose that debt on her clearance application render her an
unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant challenges the 7 August 2007 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of her clearance because of
Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended and1
modified—most recently in August 2006 (Directive).
2
financial considerations and personal conduct.  Applicant answered the SOR 16 August 2007, and1
requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me 19 November 2007, and I convened a hearing 10
December 2007. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 19 December 2007.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Six days before the scheduled hearing date, Applicant requested a continuance until February
2008, to permit her to retain counsel to represent her, because she did not currently have the funds
to retain counsel [Appellate Exhibit (App.E. 1)]. In a conference call on 5 December 2007, I denied
the request because it was not timely, not to a reasonable date certain, and was contingent on her
having funds to retain counsel—itself a speculative proposition (Tr. 5-9). At hearing, I left the record
open until the close of business on 17 December 2007, to allow Applicant to submit copies of any
IRS documentation she claimed to have, but which she did not bring to hearing (Tr. 106-108). To
date, she has submitted no documentation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant denied the financial allegations of the SOR. She admitted failing to timely file her
Federal income tax returns for 2000-2005, but denied falsifying her clearance application. She has
been a 47-year-old instructional designer for a defense contractor since June 2006. She has not
previously held a clearance. She obtained her master’s degree in education in May 2006.
 Applicant’s problems with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began in 1996, when the IRS
filed a $9,369 tax lien against her for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest for tax years 1991 and
1992. She failed to file her tax returns for 1991 and 1992 because she listened to a tax protestor who
told her that she did not have to file her income tax returns. Applicant received periodic notices over
the years, which she largely ignored. In 1999, she submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS that
the IRS rejected. She took no further action to resolve this debt.
Applicant does not recall whether she filed her income tax returns for 1993 through 1998,
but acknowledges that she did not file her income tax returns from 1999 through 2005 because she
knew she owed taxes and did not have the money to pay them. She also acknowledges that she was
particularly irresponsible with her finances during this time. She filed her late tax returns in January
2007 (G.E. 2). The income tax refunds she would have otherwise earned for those tax years were
sufficient to satisfy the 1996 tax lien, which was released in September 2007. She filed her 2006 tax
return in September 2007, within the time permitted by the extensions of time to file she obtained
from the IRS.
When Applicant submitted her clearance application in July 2006 (G.E. 1), she answered
“no” to two questions (questions 28 a. and b.) asking if she had been 180 days delinquent on any
accounts within the last seven years, or was currently 90 days delinquent on any account. Although
she had taken no steps to address her tax lien, and knew she had failed to file her income tax returns
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
3
for the last six years, she testified—not credibly—that she thought of the lien as dating back more
than seven years, and also did not think of debts to the government as debts within the scope of the
questions.
In her February 2007 answer to DOHA interrogatories (G.E. 2), Applicant listed her tax lien
as well as three other debts to the IRS (SOR 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d.). she testified that she got those
figures off IRS documents in her possession, but could not remember whether those figures
represented taxes due other than the tax lien or were interim balance figures on the tax lien. She did
not bring any IRS records to the hearing other than the lien release, and did not provide a post-
hearing submission as she was permitted.
Applicant’s character references (A.E. B) consider her an honest and trustworthy person.
It does not appear that they are aware of Applicant’s tax issues.
POLICIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines list factors to be considered in evaluating an
Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative Judges must assess both
disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and
circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific
adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information.
Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative
guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government must prove, by something
less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it
establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute,
extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the
Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the
government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest in
ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those
who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in
favor of the government.2
CONCLUSIONS
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; (g) failure3
to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same;
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is4
unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and5
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that6
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.7
¶16.(a) The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts  from any personnel8
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine
security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
¶17.(a)  The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification9
before being confronted with the facts;
¶17.(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission or concealment was caused or significantly contributed10
to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process . . . [later] the individual cooperated fully and truthfully.
4
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did
not mitigate the security concerns. Government records reflect over $19,000 of delinquent debt
acquired since 1996, because of her failure to file her federal income tax returns.3
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her financial
difficulties are both recent and multiple.  Her debts were not due to circumstances beyond her4
control, and she did not act responsibly in addressing her debts.  There is no evidence that she has5
sought credit counseling or otherwise brought the problem under control.  Her tax lien from 19966
was satisfied by the IRS seizing her income tax returns for some or all of the tax years that she was
late in filing. This is hardly a good-faith plan for satisfying her debts.  Applicant currently has one7
tax year in which she timely filed her tax return, albeit with two extensions. This is against a
backdrop in which she failed to timely file her tax returns for eight of the past 14 years, and did not
resolve an IRS tax lien for 11 years after it was filed. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and Applicant did
not mitigate the security concerns. She deliberately concealed the nature and extent of her tax debts
and issues.  Her stated explanations are a fanciful justification for her failure to disclose these issues8
to the government. Further, none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. There is no
evidence demonstrating that she corrected the falsification before being asked about it.  There is no9
evidence to suggest that Applicant receive bad advice about what she was required to disclose on
her clearance application.  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.10
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT 
5
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: For 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 denied.
 
John G. Metz, Jr.
Administrative Judge