KEYWORD: Guideline f
DIGEST: Applicant failed to file tax returns for years 2009-2012.  There is no reason to
conclude Applicant was denied an opportunity to present mitigating evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02226.a1
DATE: 07/21/2015
DATE: July 21, 2015
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02226
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John B. Glendon, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alex Kaminski, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On July
10, 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 April 6, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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 Applicant’s circumstances raised
security concerns; whether Applicant was denied due process; and 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 works for a Defense contractor.  A graduate of a military academy, Applicant
served on active duty, retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel.  He received a top secret clearance with
access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI), although his SCI access was administratively
terminated for reasons not specified in the record.  Applicant and his wife divorced in 2000, but they
have continued to cohabit for five nights a week since the divorce.1  
Applicant failed to file his income tax returns for tax years 2009 through 2012.  He attributed
this failure to (1) an erroneous belief that he did not need to file if he owed no money; (2) the
demands of a high-pressure job; (3) his providing care to his chronically ill ex-wife; (4) an
inadequate leave balance; and (5) the difficulty of obtaining all of the documents he needed to
complete his returns.  Applicant eventually filed his returns, those for 2011 and 2012 after he had
received the SOR.  The Judge noted that Applicant’s security clearance application (SCA) included
an acknowledgment that he needed to file his returns, but he failed to do so for over two years.  He
also noted that Applicant’s circumstances did not prevent him from filing tax returns on behalf of
his ex-wife.  
Applicant currently has a monthly income deficit of $387.40.  His assets are valued at over
$840,000.  Although he claims he pays off the balances on his credit cards each month, his monthly
budget shows that he has over $10,000 in consumer debt.  “It is unclear which story is accurate.” 
Decision at 6.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance.  He is
considered meticulous in his approach to his job, and he has received numerous awards.
The Judge’s Analysis
1Applicant testified that his wife suffers from a debilitating illness, and he provides care for her that she
could not otherwise obtain.  Tr. at 74-75. 
2
In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his tax
delinquencies, the Judge stated that these problems were not caused by circumstances outside
Applicant’s control.  He stated that, despite numerous opportunities to file his returns and his
promises to do so, Applicant repeatedly failed in meeting this responsibility.  The Judge
characterized Applicant’s conduct as “repeated procrastination and delay.”  Id. at 10.  He stated that
the record contains no evidence that Applicant has received financial counseling.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s military service, his
excellent job performance, his church activities, and his devotion to his ex-wife.  He found that
Applicant’s financial accounts appear to be in order.  He characterized Applicant as a meticulous
worker with impeccable judgment who had many opportunities to file his returns yet failed to do so. 
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s past conduct provides little reason for confidence that he will
comply with his tax obligations in the future.
Discussion
Due Process
Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to address some of the evidence in the
record.  He states that, at the end of the hearing, the Judge asked him to provide a financial
statement, along with other documents.  Tr. at 81.  He notes that his financial statement listed
consumer debts of over $10,000, which the Judge cited as inconsistent with Applicant’s claim that
he pays off his credit cards each month.  He argues that, had he had the opportunity to do so, he
could have explained the nature of his consumer debts.  
In making this argument, Applicant includes matters from outside the record, which we
cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  We have evaluated this argument in light of the record as a
whole.  The Judge held the record open for about a month after the hearing.  Applicant provided
several exhibits during that time which were admitted into evidence.  There is nothing in the record
to show that Applicant had requested an opportunity to comment that was denied by the Judge.  In
addition, Applicant does not explain, nor is it otherwise clear from the record, why he believes that
he could not have provided an explanation for the consumer debt at the time he submitted his
financial statement to the Judge.  As was made clear to Applicant prior to the hearing, it was his
responsibility to mitigate the concerns arising from his delinquent tax returns.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15. 
In any event, information from Applicant’s financial statement does not appear to have been a
significant factor in the Judge’s analysis, and, to the extent that he mentioned Applicant’s current
finances, the Judge described them as being in order.  Therefore, even if there were an error here,
it would be harmless.  There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied a fair opportunity to
present evidence in mitigation.
Security Concerns
3
Applicant contends that his circumstances do not raise security concerns.  He notes that he
does not actually owe money to the IRS and that he has no unexplained affluence, gambling habit,
or a need to generate funds through illegal acts.  
However, the concern under Guideline F is not simply that an applicant may owe money and
be tempted to compromise classified information in order to generate funds to pay his creditors.  The
Guideline also requires a Judge to examine an applicant’s financial condition for what it may reveal
about his judgment, self-control, and willingness to abide by rules and regulations.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-00434 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015).  The Directive presumes a nexus between
admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s worthiness for a
clearance.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-10404 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2015).  Moreover, the
Directive explicitly states that failure to file tax returns is a condition that could raise security
concerns in and of itself.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(g).  In the case before us, Applicant’s repeated
failure to have filed his returns is sufficient to raise a concern that he may be lacking in the judgment
expected of persons who have access to national security information.  We resolve this issue
adversely to Applicant.  
Whole Person Analysis
Applicant challenges the Judge’s whole-person analysis.  Specifically, he argues that the
Judge did not properly apply the factors set forth in Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a).  
A whole person analysis involves more than the consideration of these factors.  It also
requires that a Judge evaluate an applicant’s security significant conduct in light of the record as a
whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01567 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 10, 2015).  A review of the Judge’s
decision shows that he complied with this requirement.  In presenting this argument, Applicant cites
to some Hearing Office cases in which the Judges granted clearances to applicants who had failed
to file their returns.  We give these cases due consideration as persuasive authority.  However,
Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10178 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2013).  
In the case before us, Applicant’s admissions and record evidence show that he repeatedly
failed to file his Federal income tax returns.  Moreover, a reasonable person could conclude that the
explanations that Applicant provided for this failure were not sufficient to excuse, or even explain,
the malfeasance, given Applicant’s level of education, his acknowledgment in his SCA that he
needed to file his returns, and his apparent assiduous care in filing returns for his wife.  Insofar as
each case must be decided on its own merits, Applicant’s citation to other decisions is not sufficient
to show that the Judge erred.  See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  
Other Issues
Applicant argues that the Judge failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions.  However,
after considering this argument in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant is
merely presenting an alternative interpretation of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that
4
the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00173 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2014).  Moreover, Applicant’s citation to
various pieces of evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all
of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00723 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2014). 
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
5