KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge had serious doubts about Applicant’s reliability and judgment, due to his
having failed to discharge his legitimate tax obligations in two state and to the Federal
Government.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-09365.a1
DATE: 05/06/2013
DATE: May 6, 2013 
In Re:
-------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-09365
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 25, 2012, DoD 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 February 19, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien 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 failed to consider
evidence favorable to Applicant and whether the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since 2005.  He has worked either as a
contractor or as a Federal Government employee for 26 years.  He has a bachelor’s degree and is
working on an advanced degree.  He has held security clearances since the mid-1980s.
Applicant has experienced financial problems, which he attributed to his failure to have
approached his tax obligations with the appropriate degree of responsibility.  He did not file tax
returns for two states and for the Federal Government for several years.  His Federal back taxes are
now paid, but he has not yet paid off all his delinquent state tax obligations.  He admitted that these
failures reflected poorly upon his judgement.  He also had problems meeting his mortgage payments.
His lender has approved a short-sale of the house.  Applicant’s SOR alleges other debts, including
ones for student loans.  Applicant’s wife had to retire from her job, resulting in a loss of income for
the family.  Applicant’s financial statement shows a negative monthly remainder.  Applicant has not
received financial counseling.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems raised security concerns under
Guideline F.  She also concluded that Applicant had mitigated several of those concerns.  However,
she concluded that he had not done so with regard to his state and federal taxes.  Though
acknowledging that his tax debts had either been paid or were covered by a payment plan, she stated
that Applicant’s ability to maintain those plans was not clear.  Moreover, she noted that he did not
enter into payments plans for the tax debts until tax authorities had located him in another state and
that he did not begin to pay off a 1995 Federal tax lien until 2002.  She stated that she had serious
doubts about Applicant’s reliability and good judgment, due to his having failed to discharge his
legitimate tax obligations to two different states and to the Federal Government.
Discussion
Applicant asserts that he is resolving his tax problems in accordance with guidance he has
received from state and Federal taxing authorities.  He states that he does not owe taxes to the states
and that the sale of his home will provide him with funds that can be used for debt repayment.  A
Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
10-11083 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2012).  In the case currently under consideration, the Judge made
detailed findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including the short-sale of his home.  Her adverse
decision was based upon Applicant’s tax problems, which, she stated, arose due to a deliberate
decision to avoid filing returns.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence.  Neither does his argument provide a reason to believe that the Judge
mis-weighed the 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
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 Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michal Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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