KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation
for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-02326.a1
DATE: 10/14/2016
DATE: October 14, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02326
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Thomas C. Houck, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
November 11, 2015, 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 July 12, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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, who is 54 years old, has worked for her current employer since 1990.  She served
in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1982 to 1990 and was honorably discharged.  She was married from
1984 to 1994 and has three children.  
Applicant admitted that she failed to file her Federal income tax returns for 2005 through
2010 in a timely manner.  Her explanations for not filing the tax returns on time was that she always
received a refund; that she was a single mother with three children; that she would request an
extension; that there was a big strike at work in 2005; and that her children always came first.  She
also explained that she incurred educational and other expenses involving her children and that her
mother injured herself in 2009.  She took off about a month from work to help her mother who then
lived with Applicant for about ten months before returning home.
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant acknowledged that she procrastinated in filing her tax
returns.  She knew she was required to file her tax return each year, but did not see it was a “major
emergency.”  She stated, “I figured if I did not owe them, you know, they don’t really care.” 
Decision at 3.  She filed the delinquent returns in 2012.  Her Federal income tax returns reflected
that she was due a refund of about $2,700 for 2005; she owed about $1,180 for 2006; she was due
a refund of about $2,430 for 2007; she owed about $1,780 for 2008; she was due a refund of about
$2,430 for 2009;  she owed about $1,260 for 2010; and she was due a refund of about $3,050 for
2011.  She admitted she regularly received letters from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
requesting that she file her delinquent Federal income tax returns.  Her 2011 Federal income tax
return was filed in August 2012, and the Judge concluded that tax return was not filed late.  
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that she filed her 2009 and 2010 state income
tax returns in 2012, did not owe any taxes, and was due refunds.  She provided documentation
supporting those statements.  She attributed the delays in filing her state income tax returns to the
same reasons for failing to file her Federal income tax returns in a timely manner.  She explained:
“I procrastinated obtaining my refunds because of what I then considered to be higher priority
demands on my severely limited time.”  Decision at 3.
Applicant denied a charged-off home equity loan for about $34,670.  She acknowledged that
she defaulted on that loan.  She received a letter from the creditor advising it could not bring legal
action on the debt because the statute of limitations had expired.  She was advised by an attorney
not to contact the creditor, and she indicated that she does not intent to pay the debt.  She resolved
a debt for about $4,300 after the creditor filed a lawsuit against her.  After receiving the SOR, she
attempted to contact the creditor of a debt for about $200, but there was no answer.  The debt is now
with a collection agency.  For a medical debt of about $80, she stated the medical provider did not
have a record of the debt.  The medical debt is with a collection agency, and it is unknown if she
contacted the collection agency. 
Applicant is no longer living paycheck to paycheck.  She is contributing to a retirement
account and making “catch-up” payments.  She is current on her mortgage.  She stated that, since
2012, she filed her Federal tax returns on time.  Between 2006 and 2010, she took a pleasure cruise
and a trip to Europe with some of her children.  Two character witnesses testified favorably for her. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant intentionally failed to file her 2005-2010 Federal income
tax returns and her 2009 and 2010 state income tax returns in a timely manner.  She has delinquent
debts that began in at least 2009.  It was not conceivable that she was unable to complete and file
her tax returns due to her personal obligations.  Recognizing that Applicant filed her delinquent tax
return before issuance of the SOR, the Judge was unable to conclude that the conditions that resulted
in Applicant’s financial problems were not beyond her control and that she acted responsibly.   The
Judge found in favor of Applicant on the debt she settled after being threatened with a lawsuit and
found against her on the remaining SOR allegations.  
Discussion
In her appeal brief, Applicant argues that the largest debt is legally unenforceable due to the 
running of the statute of limitations and, for practical purposes, is resolved.  Comparing this debt
to those discharged in a bankruptcy, she contends this debt should not form the basis of the primary
Guideline F concern that an applicant will engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  She then argues
that her financial situation has improved and mitigated the security concerns.  Next, Applicant
contends that her failure to file income tax returns in a timely manner should have been alleged
under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive and that she came to the hearing prepared
to mitigate financial concerns and not personal conduct concerns.  For reasons discussed below,
these arguments lack merit. 
Applicant’s argument concerning the unenforceability of the largest debt due to the running
of the statute of limitations fails to demonstrate the Judge erred.  First, security clearance decisions
are not controlled or limited by statutes of limitations.  Second, absent an explicit act of Congress
to the contrary, the Federal Government is not bound by state law in carrying out its functions and
responsibilities.  Applicant does not cite to any Federal statute that requires the Federal Government
to be bound by state law in making security clearance decisions.  Third, a security clearance
adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s personal debts.  Rather, it is a
proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
Accordingly, even if a delinquent debt is legally unenforceable under state law, has been discharged
in a bankruptcy, or is paid, the Federal Government is entitled to consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding an applicant’s conduct in incurring and failing to satisfy the debt in a
timely manner.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-09691 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2003).  In this case, the
Judge’s consideration of the unenforceable debt in making her security clearance eligibility
determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
The Guideline F security concern is as follows:
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and 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 protect classified information.  An
individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.1 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise
classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts.  Rather, it requires
a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances.  The Judge
must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities
essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the
circumstances.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).  Contrary to
Applicant’s contention, Guideline F, with its disqualifying condition2 directly on point, is an
appropriate avenue for alleging security concerns that arise from an individual’s failure to file
Federal, state, or local income tax returns in a timely manner.  It is well settled that conduct may
have independent weight under multiple guidelines (see, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09251 at 3 (Mar.
27, 2007)).  The fact that Government did not allege that conduct under all possible applicable
guidelines did not relieve Applicant of the responsibility of mitigating the conduct within the scope
of the guideline alleged.  In the present case, the SOR adequately placed Applicant on notice that
her alleged failure to file her Federal and state income tax returns in timely manner was a concern
that would be addressed at the hearing.  We find no basis for concluding that Applicant’s due
process rights were violated by the Government alleging her tax return filing delinquencies under
Guideline F.   
Applicant also contends that the Judge findings about her failure to pay taxes was not
supported by the evidence.  The Judge found that Applicant did not owe any state taxes for 2009 and
2010, and found that she either owed taxes or was due refunds on her Federal income tax returns for
each year between 2005 and 2011.  Those findings were based on state and Federal income tax
returns that Applicant offered into evidence.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that
the Judge’s material findings are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable
characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record.  Applicant has not identified
any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at
3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). 
A recurring theme in Applicant’s appeal brief is her argument for an alternative weighing
of the evidence.  For example, she argues that her delay in filing tax returns was not the result of her
unwillingness to follow rules and regulations.  She contends that her family responsibilities as a
single mother and caregiver as well as her belief that she was due tax refunds mitigated her tax
return filing delinquencies.  The Appeal Board’s scope of review is to determine whether or not the
Judge’s findings of fact are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18.
2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(g): “failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required
or the fraudulent filing of the same[.]”
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence; whether the Judge adhered
to the procedures of the Directive, and whether the Judge’s ruling and conclusions are arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct.
12, 2007).  Moreover, we conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the
requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in reaching
her decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015).
  
Throughout her appeal, Applicant cites to Hearing Office decisions that she argues support
her request for a favorable determination.  The Board gives due consideration to these cases. 
However, each case must be decided upon its own merits.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  Moreover,
Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office judges nor on the Board.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).  Her arguments based on the Hearing
Office decisions are not persuasive. 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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:  James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board