KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s evaluation of his
credibility, and hence his claims of mitigation are unreasonable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02962.a1
DATE: 04/02/2015
DATE: April 2, 2015
In Re:
---------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02962
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
August 8, 2014, 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 January 15, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor for whom he has worked since March
2014.  He has never previously held a clearance.  In the mid-2000s, Applicant became owner of a
business that had three employees.  In 2008, due to the economic downturn, his business slowed,
and, three years later, it closed.  He has experienced unemployment off and on between 2011 and
the start of his current job; moreover, he and his wife divorced in 2011.  
Applicant’s SOR alleged several delinquent debts, including Federal tax obligations.  The
Judge found that many of these debts were resolved.  He also found that some of the tax allegations
were merely repeats of others in the SOR.  However, one allegation addressed a Federal tax lien
filed in 2011 for the amount of $26,672.  Applicant made inconsistent statements about this debt.
In his security clearance application he stated that he had hired a tax lawyer and that the debt had
been resolved.  In his clearance interview, he stated that his tax liens had been resolved and that the
IRS had forgiven a large portion of his debt.  Applicant submitted an Installment Agreement Request
for tax years 2008 through 2012, offering to pay $200 a month until his debt was extinguished.  He
provided no evidence that the IRS had accepted this offer.  
Applicant’s annual income is between $60,000 and $70,000, depending on the amount of
overtime he works.  He stated that he has no other delinquent debts.  He enjoys a good reputation
for his work ethic and his dedication.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved all but one of the SOR allegations in Applicant’s favor.  For the
remaining one, the tax lien, he noted that Applicant had experienced unemployment, a divorce, and
the harmful effects of the recession, which were beyond his control.  He found, however, that this
tax problem was due to Applicant’s having failed to allocate a sufficient portion of his income to
paying his tax.  He noted that there is no evidence that the IRS has accepted Applicant’s offer of
settlement.  In the whole-person analysis, he cited to Applicant’s favorable evidence.  However, he
stated that Applicant’s inconsistent statements about his tax debt were “troubling” and that his
explanations for these statements were not convincing.  Decision at 8.
Discussion
Applicant has provided some further explanation for his inconsistent statements.  However,
Applicant’s Appeal Brief is not sufficient to show that the Judge’s evaluation of his credibility was
unreasonable.  See ISCR Case No. 11-11959 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 15, 2013) (The Appeal Board gives
deference to a Judge’s credibility determination unless it is unreasonable or contradicted by other
evidence.)  Applicant’s brief refers to matters from outside the record, including documents that
post-date the Decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The 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: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael 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