KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has neither rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record nor shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-04159.a1
DATE: 08/01/2016
DATE: August 1, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04159
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Gregory F. Greiner, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 17, 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 May 23, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 the Judge’s findings were based
upon substantial record evidence 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’s SOR allegations arose from his failure to file and pay Federal and state income
taxes for a number of years.  His tax problems originated with his having employed an accountant
who was “too aggressive with regard to income tax deductions.”  Decision at 2.  The IRS questioned
his tax returns, so Applicant changed accountants and paid estimated taxes.  Applicant relied on his
spouse to gather and deliver tax documentation to their new accountant, but the documents became
lost and Applicant’s spouse did not keep copies.  Applicant suspects that his spouse’s unreliability
may result from health issues.  From 2001 until 2011, Applicant did his taxes himself.  He performed
estimated tax filings, but he never completed final income tax returns.  After becoming aware of a
tax lien, Applicant hired a new accountant, who entered into settlement negotiations.
Applicant’s total tax debt is about $465,000, although he believes that he will ultimately pay
between $40,000 and $50,000.  Applicant has sufficient resources to satisfy his ultimate tax debt. 
He earns a little over $200,000 a year and estimates the gross value of his assets as between $4
million and $5 million.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that, despite representations to the contrary, there is little evidence that
Applicant’s income tax filings would be completed by the end of 2015.  He noted evidence that
Applicant had tasked his spouse with managing the couple’s tax materials, despite knowing that she
was less than reliable.  He stated that Applicant’s arguments and positions regarding his negotiations
with tax authorities are not clear and that it is difficult to tell if Applicant has a reasonable basis to
dispute the amounts at issue.  The Judge suggested that, given Applicant’s sizeable assets, the
protracted nature of his tax negotiations may be due to his unwillingness to settle.  
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s excellent
professional credentials.  However, the Judge found it “inexplicable” that Applicant would have
trusted his spouse with important tax responsibilities, given his belief in her unreliability.  Id. at 8. 
He also cited to evidence that Applicant did not preserve his records even after he assumed
responsibility for handling the couple’s taxes.  Though noting that Applicant had made some efforts
to resolve his tax problems, the Judge concluded that, on the whole, the record did not support a
conclusion that Applicant had mitigated the security concerns in his case.
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings.  After examining the record, we conclude that the
Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences
that could be drawn from the record.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25,
2014).  Applicant has not cited to any harmful error in the Judge’s findings.  Moreover, Applicant
has neither rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor
shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).
We conclude that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory
explanation for the decision.  A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations,
such as filing and paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment
and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015).  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 Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board