KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s finding that Applicant deliberately omitted his federal income liens from
his security clearance application is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-07602.a1
DATE: 02/17/2012
DATE: February 17, 2012
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-07602
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Tovah A. Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 20, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 December 8, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 finding that
Applicant had deliberately falsified his security clearance application (SCA) and whether the
Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The
Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant started a company that
served a number of clients, including the Government.  He was successful, and the company had no
financial problems.  In the mid-2000s, Applicant used some of his profits to purchase a coffee shop.
That business did not succeed, because of a lack of business.  He closed it in 2007.  Later, he closed
his company as well, due to the recession.
The IRS filed liens against Applicant.  The tax debts were related to his business.  One lien
was for $193,000 and was due to an improper deduction he took when retrofitting the building where
his coffee shop was located.  Two other liens were the result of his failure to pay his coffee shop’s
payroll taxes.  He has a plan for paying off these two debts, and he is attempting to work out a
payment plan for the large debt as well.  
When he competed his SCA, he failed to disclose that he had not paid federal taxes.  He later
stated that he had been acting on the advice of an accountant in taking the deduction that resulted
in the $193,000 debt.  He also failed to disclose the lien against his property.  He stated that, when
he filled out his SCA, he had so many debts that he could not keep track of them all.  
In the Analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant had been aware of the liens when he
completed the SCA and of the fact that he owed the IRS a substantial amount of money.  The Judge
found that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate and that the record did not support a favorable
application of any of the Guideline E Mitigating Conditions.      
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that his omissions were deliberate.  In
analyzing an applicant’s knowledge or intent, a Judge must consider the omissions in light of the
entire record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08023 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 6, 2011).  In this case, the
Judge’s challenged finding is supported by substantial record evidence.  
The record supports a conclusion 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
3
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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor 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
Chairperson, 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