DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February1
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant previously agreed to the hearing date in a telephone conversation with Department Counsel more2
than 15 days before the hearing (Tr. 12-13).
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )         ISCR Case No. 07-13394
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 5 August 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F.  Applicant’s undated answer arrived at DOHA 3 September 2008, and requested a1
hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 2 October 2008, and I convened a hearing 30
October 2008.  DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 6 November 2008.2
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. She is a 39-year-old consultant
employed by a defense contractor since May 2005. She has not previously held a
clearance.
The SOR alleges, Applicant admits, and government exhibits substantiate, four
delinquent debts to the Internal Revenue Service, for tax years 2000, 2002, 2004, and
2005, totaling over $27,000. Applicant asserts, without corroboration that the debt at
SOR 1.a. has been reduced to $2,000. These are joint debts with her husband, from
whom she separated in May 2008, and with whom there are no pending divorce
proceedings.
Applicant attributes the initial debt in 2000 to her husband’s failure to have
adequate federal income tax withholding (FITW) for that tax year. However, she also
failed to have adequate FITW for that year from her part-time job as a fitness instructor.
The tax debts for 2002 and 2004, were also due to inadequate FITW. The 2005 tax debt
was due to taxes and penalties on a pre-mature distribution from her 401K
account—money that she and her husband used as a down payment on a home they
bought. Applicant had tax refunds in tax years 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2007 that were
seized by the IRS to reduce her tax debt. In January 2008, the latest record date in
evidence, Applicant still owed over $24,000. The 2000 tax debt had been reduced to
just over $4,000, but the 2002, 2004, and 2005 tax debts continue to grow through
penalties and interest.
According to Applicant, she and her husband entered into a repayment plan with
the IRS after the 2000 debt arose (and to which the other tax debts were added). The
record does not clearly indicate when the initial plan was instituted. Record evidence
(G.E. 5) reflects that the IRS filed a tax lien against Applicant and her husband in
February 2007, and a formal repayment plan was established in late March 2007.
Applicant claims that the first she knew he was not making the required payments was
in July/August 2007, when the IRS garnished her wages to satisfy the lien. Applicant
then assumed the payments. It appears that the IRS garnished $1,000 per month for a
couple of months. It also appears that Applicant got the monthly obligation reduced to
$500 per month in September 2007, so she could continue to make her mortgage
payments. Applicant documented $500 payments in November 2007, December 2007,
and January 2008. She did not document any payments since January 2008.
After Applicant and her husband separated in May 2008, she remained in the
marital home. He pays the utility bills, but does not contribute to the mortgage. The
house is on the market to be sold. Applicant has considered cashing in more of her
401k to satisfy the IRS debt, but recent declines in the market leave the account value
below the current IRS balance.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;4
3
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) 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 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 RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where 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 guideline is Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).
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.3
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial
difficulties dating to at least 2000.  Although her husband bears some responsibility for4
the tax debts through his failure to have adequate FITW, Applicant also failed to have
adequate FITW in her part-time job. That, along with their apparent joint decision to
cash out some of their 401k plans to make a down-payment on a house, suggests that if
they were not living beyond their means, they were living very close to that line.
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
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 that7
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.8
4
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  The problems are not largely due5
to circumstances beyond her control, and her response has been mixed.  She has not6
documented continued payment after January 2008, and annual seizure of her tax
refund by the IRS hardly constitutes a repayment plan. Further, her current financial
situation is fairly characterized as being in flux. She and her husband have recently
separated. There are no divorce proceedings pending, nor is there any movement
toward a property settlement. The husband appears to not be paying his fair share of
continuing household expenses. There is no evidence that Applicant has undertaken
financial counseling. She has not demonstrated that the problem has been brought
substantially under control.  The payments that have been paid have not been paid in a7
timely, good-faith effort.  The record does not indicate when, if ever, her financial8
situation will be settled enough for her to make clear progress on her tax debt. I
conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Conclusion
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 GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge