KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence of his efforts to resolve
his tax liens.  He states that he has resolved all of his debts except for those two liens and cites to
evidence that he has retained a tax firm to assist him.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. The Judge stated that
Applicant did not provide information to corroborate his claim that these liens had been
discharged.  This comment is consistent with the record that was before him.   A person who
fails to fulfill his or her 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. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02329.a1
DATE: 11/18/2016
DATE: November 18, 2016
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02329
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
December 3, 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).  Department Counsel requested
a hearing.  On August 15, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 failed to consider
mitigating evidence, rendering the adverse decision arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since 2012.  He enjoys a good employment
record.  He incurred substantial state tax debts when he withdrew money from a retirement account, 
mistakenly believing that the transactions were tax free.  The SOR alleged two liens for delinquent
state taxes.  Applicant also incurred liens from the IRS for delinquent Federal taxes.  Applicant’s
Federal tax problems were not alleged in the SOR.  The Judge stated that he was considering the
Federal liens for the limited purpose of understanding the circumstances underlying Applicant’s
financial problems and his efforts to resolve them.
Applicant could not explain the state liens, believing that his tax obligations had been
resolved from proceeds resulting from the sale of a house.  Though given an opportunity to present
additional evidence after the hearing regarding the state tax debt, he submitted nothing beyond what
was already in the record.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved several allegations in Applicant’s favor.  These pertained to various
collection accounts that were of relatively small amounts.  However, he resolved allegations
regarding the two state tax liens against Applicant.  He stated that Applicant did not present
evidence that would corroborate his claim that these liens had been discharged following the sale
of his house.  The Judge concluded that these liens raised concerns about Applicant’s current
reliability that were not mitigated.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence of his efforts to resolve his tax
liens.  He states that he has resolved all of his debts except for those two liens and cites to evidence
2
that he has retained a tax firm to assist him.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App.
Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  The Judge stated that Applicant did not provide information to corroborate his
claim that these liens had been discharged through the sale of his house.  This comment is consistent
with the record that was before him.
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  A person who fails to fulfill his or her 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).  “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: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3