KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Judge did not err in concluding that Applicant’s having failed to permit inquiry into
his IRS records raised Guideline E security concerns.  Applicant failed to meet his burden of
persuasion regarding security concerns arising from his failure to cooperate, his omissions from
the SCA, and his delinquent debts.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 09-06260.a1
DATE: 09/02/2010
DATE: September 2, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06260
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 February 26, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 25, 2010, after the hearing,
1See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15: “The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or
administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause,
to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to . . . completing security forms or
releases[.]”
  
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 16(d): “credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other
guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available
information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment  . . . or other characteristics indicating that
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 erred in her application
of the Guideline E disqualifying conditions; whether the Judge erred in concluding that his
omissions from the SCA were deliberate; whether the Judge erred in her application of the
mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a technical network
engineer employed by a Defense contractor.  He served in the U.S. military from 1987 to 1990.  
In around 2000, Applicant was employed by a contractor who did not withhold taxes from
his pay.  Being unable to pay his taxes for 2000 (he had gone some weeks without work, due to bad
weather, etc.), he simply did not file returns.  He did not file returns for years 2001 through 2004
as well.  Although he has subsequently filed his returns and paid off his debt to the state, at the close
of the record he owed over $90,000 to the IRS.  He has entered into an installment plan with the IRS
and has made four monthly payments of $200 toward satisfaction of his tax debt.
Applicant completed his security clearance application (SCA) in January 2010.  One question
asked if he had been over 180 days delinquent on any debt and another if he were currently over 90
days delinquent on any debt.  Applicant did not list his state and federal tax debts in answering these
questions.  Additionally, at his interview, Applicant declined to sign a release authorizing
investigators to verify his delinquent taxes with the IRS.  He was concerned that, if he did so, his
payment plan with the IRS might be jeopardized.  
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for the quality of his job performance, his integrity, and
his accountability.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in her application of the Guideline E disqualifying
conditions.  For example, he argues that the Judge erred in concluding that his having failed to
permit inquiry into his IRS records raised security concerns.  We have considered Applicant’s
argument in light of the Judge’s decision and the record.  The Judge found that this evidence did not
constitute an outright refusal to cooperate, given the fact that Applicant provided the investigator
with truthful information about the extent of his IRS debt.1  However, she concluded that this refusal
nevertheless reflected poorly upon Applicant’s judgment and raised Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition 16(d).2  Applicant “exhibited poor judgment in putting his personal interest before the
the person may not properly safeguard protected information.”  
3Applicant’s subject interview summary, included in Government Exhibit 2, Response to Interrogatories, at 3,
describes Applicant as telling the interviewer that, in completing his SCA, he had forgotten about his tax issue.  At the
hearing, however, Applicant denied having made that statement.  Tr. at 91.  The Judge provided a reasonable explanation
for her conclusion that this denial was not believable.
  
Government’s legitimate request for information needed for proper adjudication.”  Decision at 11.
This conclusion, viewed in light of the record, is reasonable.  Accordingly, the Judge did not err in
raising this disqualifying condition.  
Additionally, Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that his omissions from
the SCA were deliberate.  However, the Judge noted that Applicant was aware that he had owed
money both to the state as well as the IRS during the time period addressed in the questions.  She
concluded that his testimony that he believed financial delinquency applied only to consumer debt
to be unworthy of belief.  She also cited to inconsistent statements which further diminished the
credibility of his testimony regarding his omissions from the SCA.3  The Judge’s conclusion that
Applicant deliberately omitted information about his tax debts is sustainable.  
While the Judge concluded that Applicant had mitigated some of the allegations in the SOR,
she further concluded that he had failed to mitigate his substantial IRS debt, his failure to list his tax
debts on the SCA, and his failure to authorize inquiry into his IRS debt.  She concluded that
Applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient track record of debt repayment to meet his burden of
persuasion under Guideline F.  Furthermore, she found that Applicant’s explanation about his
decision not to sign the release, and his explanation as to why he did not reveal his tax delinquencies
on the SCA, impugned his credibility and undermined his case for mitigation.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and 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)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general
standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the
national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board