KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A person with a history of failing to meet tax obligations may be said not have
demonstrated the high degree of judgment and reliability required for access to classified
information. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 13-01303.a1
DATE: 01/29/2015
DATE: January 29, 2015
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 13-01303
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Kiran Joshi, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 30, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
2
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 decision
on the written record.  On October 30, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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.
We construe Applicant’s appeal brief as contending that the Judge failed to consider record
evidence concerning his efforts to resolve his tax debts.  Consistent with the following, we affirm
the Judge’s decision.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
In essence, the Judge found that Applicant did not file timely Federal or state income tax
returns for tax years 2009 through 2012.  He was experiencing other financial problems, such as
mortgage debts, money owed to a homeowner’s association, and other difficulties.  He assigned
these debts a higher priority than he did his tax obligations.  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant
contended that his Federal taxes had been paid and that he was in the process of resolving his debt
to the state.  Despite language in the File of Relevant Material that corroboration of such claims
would be beneficial, Applicant did not provide a response.  The Judge also found that it is unclear
whether Applicant has filed his taxes for 2013.  She reopened the record to permit the parties to
submit documentation clarifying the issues.  Neither did so.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted that Applicant had paid some of his debts, such as the one to the
homeowner’s association.  However, she noted that Applicant had not corroborated his claims to
have paid his Federal tax debts and to be addressing his state tax obligation.  She also stated that
without knowing whether he has filed for tax year 2013, she cannot be assured that Applicant can
be counted on to comply with the law in future years.  She stated that a knowing failure to comply
with legal obligations “is antithetical to the good judgment that must be required of those persons
entrusted with the Nation’s secrets.”  Decision at 8.  
Discussion
Applicant’s submission mentions his efforts to resolve his delinquent Federal tax debts.
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014).  He refers to actions taken
after the close of the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29 (“No new evidence
shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).    
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “Failure . . . to . . . 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
3
protect classified information.”  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18.  A person who has a history of failing
to meet his or her tax obligations “may be said not to have demonstrated the high degree of
judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.”  ISCR Case No. 12-05053
at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2014).  “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.”
4
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael 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