KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to file federal and state tax returns raised Guideline F security
concerns.  Matters which Applicant submitted in his behalf were not sufficient to meet his burden
of persuasion.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 04-11768.a1
DATE: 07/22/2009
DATE: July 22, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-11768
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 July 22, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
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 23, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had not filed federal income tax returns for tax years 2005
through 2007 and that he had not filed state tax returns for 2006 or 2007.  She also found that his
federal return for 2004 and his state tax returns for 2004 and 2005 were not filed until 2008.  The
Judge considered the matters Applicant submitted in his case for mitigation but concluded that he
had failed to meet his burden of persuasion.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that
the Judge has articulated a rational explanation for the adverse decision.  See 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)).  The Judge’s decision that
“it is clearly not 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board