KEYWORD: Guideline; Guideline e
DIGEST: The Judge made findings abour Applicant’s evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02387.a1
DATE: 05/07/2015
DATE: May 7, 2015
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02387
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 July
29, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the 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).   Department Counsel requested a hearing.  On March 2, 2015, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 did not file her Federal income tax return for 2009.  In addition, she owes $11,810
in unpaid Federal taxes for 2008 and 2010.  Applicant has other delinquent debts, for mortgage
accounts, dental treatment, consumer purchases, etc.  When completing her security clearance
application (SCA), Applicant did not disclose her delinquent debts, her unpaid taxes, and her failure
to file her 2009 return.  Applicant made inconsistent statements about her finances.  For example,
she testified that she knew in 2011 or 2012 that her electronic tax filing for 2009 did not go through. 
However, she later testified that she did not know about this until after she submitted her SCA.  She
also testified that her 2008 and 2010 tax debts had been paid and that arrangements had been made
to pay the debt for 2009.  The Judge found that this testimony was not true, in light of Applicant’s
own evidence, a document from the IRS.  The Judge found that Applicant’s presentation was not
consistent with the record evidence and was not credible.
Applicant’s husband was laid off in 2012, experiencing three months of unemployment.  The
couple have two adult children, ages 27 and 23, whom they have supported through their college
educations and beyond.  They are providing full support to the younger.  Applicant earns about
$75,000 a year.  Her husband earns about $32,000, plus an additional $10,000 from a side business. 
Applicant manages the family finances, though she admits that she does not know how much they
have at the end of the month.  She stated that they live paycheck to paycheck.  Applicant stated that
she had a repayment plan with the IRS, although she submitted documentary evidence of payments
of only a fraction of her total debt.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial problems were ongoing and were not likely to
have been significantly affected by her husband’s three months of unemployment.  He concluded
that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her debts, most of her efforts
at debt resolution having taken place at or near the date of her hearing.  He noted that she has not
had financial counseling, nor does she have a plan for resolving all of her debts.  Concerning the
allegation of falsification under Guideline E, the Judge found that the totality of facts and
circumstances support a conclusion that Applicant deliberately omitted pertinent information about
her delinquent debts.  He found that she had not attempted to correct the omission or established any
other of the Guideline E mitigating conditions.  
Discussion
2
Applicant argues that the Judge failed properly to apply the whole-person concept, in that
he gave insufficient weight to evidence favorable to her.  She cites to her husband’s unemployment,
arguing that the Judge erred in his conclusion that it did not likely have a significant impact on her
financial condition.  She also cites to her having held a clearance for many years with no problems
and to her repayment plan with the IRS.  The Judge made findings about Applicant’s evidence. 
However, given the extent and the ongoing nature of her debts, along with the Judge’s adverse
credibility determination, we conclude that his overall decision is supported by the record. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record or that he weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06438 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2009).   
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
3