KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found against Applicant on one SOR allegation: a $62,000 child support
delinquent debt for which Applicant offered multiple explanations.  The Judge also found that
Applicant is not current on his state and federal income taxes.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-04252.a1
DATE: 06/22/2009
DATE: June 22, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-04252
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 30, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
See Tr. at 91: “Q: . . . Are you current on your state and federal taxes right now? . . . A: No.  Q: You’re not?1
A: No . . . Q: How much do you owe [to State]: A: I don’t know, I haven’t filed them in years . . . Q: What about federal
taxes?  A: I’m behind in them too.  I still haven’t filed in a couple [of] years.”  
2
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On April 16, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge was biased against Applicant; and
whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 65 year-old systems
engineer for a Defense contractor.  He has had two prior wives.  He has three children by the second
of the two, and he went through “an acrimonious divorce” with her.  Decision at 2.
Of the nine debts listed in the SOR, the Judge found against Applicant only as to one of them,
a $62,567 child/family support order by a court, arising from the above-referenced divorce from his
second wife.  Applicant provided several explanations for this debt: (1) that the court order misstated
his income, resulting in erroneous payment calculations; (2) that the district attorney was prejudiced
against him and that lawyers in the DA office falsified the court order; (3) that his second wife is the
head of a crime family and put pressure on the DA to get more money from Applicant; and (4) that
Applicant should not have to pay the debt because he is 65 years old.  The Judge also found that
Applicant is not current on his state and federal income taxes.  Applicant stated that he has not paid
his taxes because he does not want any refund to go to his ex-wife in satisfaction of the child support
order.  In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge concluded, inter alia, that Applicant had
failed to demonstrate responsible behavior in regard to his child support debt.   Neither did Applicant
provide  a reasonable basis to question the validity of this debt.   
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Applicant claims that the Judge erred in finding that he had not filed tax returns in
recent years.  However, a review of the record supports the Judge’s findings.   Considering the record1
evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).  Concerning Applicant’s claim that the Judge
lacked the requisite impartiality, there is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and
unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion.  See,
e. g., ISCR Case No. 07- 02253 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2008); ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 4 (App.
Bd. May 14, 2004).  Applicant’s argument on appeal is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and
3
articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the
facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  Applicant points to his having held a security clearance for around 40
years without incident or concern.  However, prior decisions to grant or retain a clearance do not
undermine the legal sufficiency of the Judge’s subsequent adverse decision.  “The government is not
estopped from making an adverse clearance decision when there were prior favorable adjudications.”
ISCR Case No. 07-17383 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2009), quoting ISCR Case No. 03-04927 at 5 (App.
Bd. Mar. 4, 2005).  Additionally, although the unpaid taxes were not alleged in the SOR, the Judge
properly considered them in evaluating the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  The
Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 9.  See also
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance
may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                  
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board