KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge should consider the circumstances underlying an applicant’s financial
problems for what they reveal about the applicant’s judgment, self-control, etc.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-06744.a1
DATE: 11/07/2016
DATE: November 7, 2016
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06744
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
24, 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 decision
on the written record.  On June 20, 2016, after considering the record, 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 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 works for a Defense contractor.  He served in the military from 1996 to 2001.  He
has held clearances since 2000.  Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts.  Three of them are
liens for state taxes, and one is a lien for Federal taxes.  Applicant claimed that he had entered into
payment plans for his taxes, although he did not corroborate.  Other debts are for two charged-off
automobile loans (in the amounts of about $23,000 and $366) and another is for a credit card.  As
with the tax liens, Applicant did not corroborate his claims of efforts to resolve his debts. 
Applicant’s problems were affected by a deployment overseas during which time tax was not being
withheld from his income.  They were also affected by the expiration of his student loan deferment
and by his wife’s unemployment.
Applicant did not furnish a recent financial statement.  Previous information that he
submitted concerning his financial situation was not accurate.  The Judge found that it is difficult
to determine if Applicant’s finances are under control.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved some of the SOR allegations in Applicant’s favor.  However, for the tax
liens, the automobile loans, and the credit card referenced above, he entered adverse findings.  He
concluded that Applicant’s financial delinquencies were not infrequent.  He stated that Applicant
never explained why he did not at least pay the tax liens that were for small amounts and that
Applicant had not provided sufficient information about his wife’s unemployment to mitigate the
concerns raised by the SOR.  The Judge also cited to a paucity of evidence supporting Applicant’s
claims of efforts at debt resolution.  He concluded that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard
to his financial problems.
Discussion
Applicant quotes the statement of concern regarding Guideline F.  See Directive, Enclosure
2 ¶ 18.  He denies that he is at risk of committing illegal acts to generate funds.  However, the
concern under Guideline F is not simply that an applicant might be tempted to compromise classified
information in order to pay his debts.  A Judge should also consider the extent to which an
applicant’s circumstances cast doubt upon his judgment, self control, and other characteristics
essential to protecting national security information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 2-3
(App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).  We find no error in the manner in which the Judge evaluated the concerns
arising from Applicant’s delinquent debts.
Applicant cites to his good security record and to evidence concerning the circumstances
underlying his debts.  In doing so, he includes evidence that was not contained in the record,
including a document that post-dates the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on
appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered
2
all of the evidence in the record or shown that he mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  A person who fails to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, 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).  See Cafeteria &
Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367
U.S. 886 (1961). 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: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3