KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant had resolved a number of his debts to include tax debts.  The Judge cited
evidence of financial stability.  The Judge’s analysis reflects a reasonable interpretation of the
record evidence.  Favorable decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-13965.a1
DATE: 08/06/2013
DATE: August 6, 2013
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-13965
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
David Allen Barnette, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 17, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
1We note assertions in Applicant’s reply brief to the effect that statutory liens of the sort at issue in this case
do not expire by operation of law, for example through a statute of limitations, as Department Counsel intimated.
Applicant argues that the state’s voluntary release of the lien indicates that the lien was improper ab initio, Applicant
admitting that he had not paid it because he believed it to be unjust.  Applicant contended at the hearing that the state
workers’ compensation commission had retroactively, and improperly, imposed workers’ compensation premiums on
Applicant’s business that were substantially in excess of the industry standard at the time.   
2
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline B
(Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 17, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez granted Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
This appeal centers around a statutory lien filed by a state against Applicant due to failure
to pay workers compensation premiums on behalf of a business that Applicant ran.  The Judge found
that Applicant had started the company in the mid-1980s and that it was successful until the late
1990s, when it filed for bankruptcy protection.  Applicant himself also filed for bankruptcy
protection, because he had personally guaranteed the business’s debts.  Applicant’s debts were
discharged in the year after his filing.
After his discharge in bankruptcy, Applicant settled a nearly $800,000 federal tax debt
related to the business and a smaller tax debt owed to the state.  However, he did not resolve the
above-referenced statutory lien, in the amount of nearly $800,000, based on a payroll tax debt that
he disputed.  The state eventually released the lien, and Applicant provided documentation to that
effect.1  His finances have been stable since the failure of his former business.
The Judge’s Analysis
In the Analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant had not simply relied on bankruptcy to
address his financial problems but that he had resolved a number of debts, to include tax debts to
the Federal Government and to the state.  The Judge noted that Applicant had submitted
documentary proof that his remaining debt had been released by the state and cited to evidence that
Applicant had maintained financial stability in the years since his security-significant conduct.  
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant had held a clearance during his
24-year military career without incident or concern.  He stated that Applicant’s performance of
3
official duties had contributed to national security and “helped protect the lives of U.S. personnel”
serving in dangerous conditions. 
Discussion 
Department Counsel argues that Applicant’s refusal to pay the workers compensation tax lien
for 13 years evidenced an unwillingness to meet his financial obligations.  He asserts that the fact
that the lien as been resolved does not negate Applicant’s past conduct showing that Applicant
intentionally failed to address his financial obligation, casting doubt on his reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment.  
The Judge’s analysis and conclusions reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record that
was before him.  We do not have to agree with a Judge’s decision to find it sustainable.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 10-03301 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2012).  
Order
The 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
4