KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s decision focused to a large extent on evidence that his taxes remained
delinquent for several years and were not addressed until Applicant received the SOR. As we
have noted previously, timing of debt payments is relevant in evaluating an applicant’s case for
mitigation. It also focused on established precedent about the adverse significance of an
applicant’s failure to file and pay his taxes. As we have noted previously, a person who fails
repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of good
judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06808.a1
DATE: 11/23/2016
DATE: November 23, 2016
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06808
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
September 2, 2015, 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).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 29, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal:  Applicant’s
SOR includes numerous delinquent debts.  He has experienced unemployment, during the mid-2000s
and again in June through October 2012.  His financial difficulties were also affected by his
domestic partner’s inability to find steady employment.  He began experiencing financial problems
in 2007 and instructed his employer to stop withholding taxes from his income.  Applicant failed to
file and/or pay his Federal and state taxes for several years.  He completed his Federal return for
2009 in April 2010 and his returns for 2010 through 2012 in late 2015.  He filed his 2013 returns
electronically in late 2015.  Applicant has sought a repayment plan with the IRS to make payments
of $80 a month, but the offer has not been accepted as of early 2016.  Applicant completed
delinquent state tax returns for 2009 through 2012 in early 2016. 
Applicant acknowledged that it was mere “stupidity” on his part to have failed to file his tax
returns.  Directive at 7.  He promised to comply with tax filing obligations in the future.  Applicant
enjoys a good reputation for the quality of his work performance as well as for honesty and
trustworthiness.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant of most of the debts alleged in the SOR.  She entered adverse
findings for three debts, one of which had been reduced to judgment.  The gravamen of her analysis
was Applicant’s failure to have filed and paid his Federal and state income taxes.  She noted
circumstances outside his control that harmed his finances, such as unemployment.  However, she
also noted his diminished tax withholding, which was his own decision.  She stated that Applicant
has no confirmed installment plan to repay his delinquent taxes.  She also stated that Applicant  had
been on notice of these back taxes at least since his 2013 clearance interview but had only recently
2
undertaken corrective action.  She concluded that the timing of Applicant’s tax filing–after receipt
of the SOR–diminishes the weight to which this action was entitled.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief contains matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  He cites to his evidence about his proposed installment plans and contends that
he has mitigated the concerns arising from his tax delinquencies.  The Judge’s decision focused to
a large extent on evidence that his taxes remained delinquent for several years and were not
addressed until Applicant received the SOR.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01243 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun.
18, 2015) (Timing of debt payments is relevant in evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation). It
also focused on established precedent about the adverse significance of an applicant’s failure to file
and pay his taxes.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015).  (A person
who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of
good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information).  Applicant
has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has
he shown that she mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd.
Apr. 26, 2016).
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
3
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4