1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-02679
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On April 13, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In a response dated May 3, 2010, Applicant admitted all 10 allegations raised
under Guideline F and requested an administrative determination. On July 23, 2010,
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which included nine
attached items. Applicant did not submit any response or information within the time
period of 30 days after his receipt of the FORM.  The case was assigned to me on
November 2, 2010. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find
Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security
clearance denied.
 Regarding the approximately $31,817 in Federal tax liability incurred for tax years 2002-2005, the IRS      1
prepared substitute tax returns for Applicant. The IRS computed his tax debt based on the substitute forms,
plus interest and penalties assessed. See FORM, Item 9 at 2, 5, and 8. There is no indication whether
Applicant owes additional taxes for tax years after 2005.
 FORM, Item 6 at 6.      2
 FORM, Item 7 at 5.      3
 FORM, Item 8 at 2-4.      4
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 56-year-old aviation instructor/controller who has worked for the
same defense contractor since 2003. He served in the United States military from 1972
until 1992. He is a divorced father of two adult children and one minor child.
In responding to the SOR, Applicant provided scant information regarding his
personal life and finances. He admitted without explanation that his wages at a former
employer were garnished in about 2002 for approximately $8,400 in favor of the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) because he had failed to pay voluntarily (SOR allegation ¶ 1.a);
that he failed to file his Federal income tax returns for the tax years 2003-2008, as
required (SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b-1.g); that he is indebted to the IRS for tax year 2003
in the approximate amount of $4,259 and that the debt remained unpaid as of the April
13, 2010, SOR (SOR allegation ¶ 1.h); that he is indebted to the IRS for tax year 2004
in the approximate amount of $13,983 and that the debt remained unpaid as of the April
13, 2010, SOR (SOR allegation ¶ 1.i); and that he is indebted to the IRS for tax year
2005 in the approximate amount of $13,575 and that the debt remained unpaid as of
the April 13, 2010, SOR (SOR allegation ¶ 1.j).1
During a November 2007 interview regarding his security clearance application
(SCA), Applicant admitted that he had not filed Federal tax returns for tax years 2003-
2006. He claimed that the military had not supplied him with W-2 forms for his military
retirement pay since 2003, but said he was addressing that issue by updating his
contact information with the military payment system and that he hoped “to complete
the appropriate filing as soon as possible.”  No evidence of any attempts to rectify this2
situation were submitted. 
In June 2008, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant noted that he was
getting divorced from the spouse listed in his June 2005 security clearance application
(SCA), and he provided the name of a child born abroad in 2006. He admitted he still
had not filed his Federal tax returns for tax years 2003-2006. He stated that he would
file his taxes “after I get my daughter’s Birth abroad paperwork with SN # [sic].”  3
In November 2009, in response to another set of DOHA interrogatories,
Applicant again admitted that he had not filed the Federal tax returns at issue. He also
admitted that he had failed to file Federal tax returns for 2007 and 2008.  He stated that4
he was “waiting on some information back from the IRS that I requested so I can file all
 FORM, Item 8 at 5.      5
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      6
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
3
of my tax years and I am waiting for my daughter’s SSN # [sic].”  Applicant did not5
explain his continued delay in addressing any of these issues in his May 2010 response
to the SOR.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. The AG lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law.
Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative judge’s
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under
AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a
decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. It is an applicant’s responsibility to
present  “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts
admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is6
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  7
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to
potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
 See also EO 12968, § 3.1(b)  and EO 10865 § 7.      8
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      9
 Id.      10
 AG ¶ 18.      11
 Id.      12
4
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance8
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt9
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  A security clearance denial does not10
necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is merely an indication that the
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
In this case, Guideline F is the appropriate guideline for consideration. Under
that guideline, “failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to
abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”  It also states11
that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.”  Here, Applicant admitted that he owes and has owed the IRS12
an amount of approximately $31,817 for several years. He admitted his wages were
garnished in 2002 for approximately $8,400 for payment to the IRS. He also admitted
he failed to file Federal tax returns for tax years 2003 through 2008. Therefore,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts), FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(g) (failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income
tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns. 
Applicant failed to file Federal tax returns for tax year 2003, a pattern that
continued through, at least, tax year 2008. There is no evidence this matter has been
addressed. Applicant has not noted any continuing difficulties in updating his contact
information with the military’s payment system or in receiving his W-2 forms from the
military; he has not explained his delays in obtaining a Social Security number for a
child born in 2006; and has not provided a recent explanation for his continued delays
in addressing the admitted SOR allegations. Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent,
or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not
apply. 
 Examination of the “whole-person” in this matter is limited due to Applicant’s failure to supplement the      13
record with more personal information that might be relevant and material to this case.
5
 Since November 2007, Applicant has not noted any further difficulties in
maintaining contact with the military pay system that might have protracted his ability to
receive W-2 forms or submit overdue tax returns. While Applicant may have had
difficulty obtaining a Social Security number for a child born in 2006, Applicant failed to
explain and document why that difficulty continued for several years. Moreover, while
Applicant may have divorced within the past few years, no information was provided
indicating it adversely impacted his ability to file or pay his Federal tax returns.
Therefore, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that
resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce
or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) does not
apply.
There is no evidence Applicant has sought financial counseling or addressed his
issues with the IRS, obviating application of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that
the problem is being resolved or is under control). Moreover, there is no evidence that
Applicant has either paid or disputed the calculated tax liability for tax years 2003-2005,
or attempted to file Federal tax returns for the remaining tax years at issue. Therefore,
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Given the limited facts provided, none of the
other FC MCs apply.
The burden for mitigation in these proceedings is placed squarely on Applicant.
Lacking any evidence that he has made any progress on addressing any of the
allegations noted in the SOR, financial considerations security concerns remain
unmitigated.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the “whole-person concept,” the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole-person concept. As noted above, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the
applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors.  Applicant is a mature man who served in the U.S. military for 20 years. He has13
6
raised two children and is currently raising his minor child. He has been continuously
employed with the same employer for seven years. 
Although no documentary evidence was ever offered, Applicant stated that his
delays in filing Federal tax returns between, at least, 2003 and 2005, were based in part
on difficulty in obtaining W-2 forms from the military due to its not having current contact
information for him. In 2008, he claimed his delays were based on difficulties in
obtaining a Social Security number for a daughter born abroad in 2006. In November
2009, he stated that after three years, he was still having problems getting the child’s
Social Security number, while also claiming he was awaiting some unidentified
information from the IRS. In May 2010, in response to the FORM, he admitted the
allegations without comment. He did not timely respond to the July 23, 2010, FORM
with any additional information. Consequently, there is no explanation as to why these
issues remain unaddressed. 
As noted, with multiple disqualifying conditions raised, Applicant has the burden
of raising mitigating conditions that would mitigate the financial considerations security
concerns raised. Applicant provided insufficient information that might tend to mitigate
those concerns. The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. As noted above, any
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information. In light of the
foregoing, security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance denied.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j:  Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified
information. Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge