KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to documentary evidence, arguing that he has demonstrated mitigation. 
In DOHA proceedings, applicants bear the burden of persuasion.  Although Applicant presented
some evidence, the Judge’s overall conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion is
supportable based on the total  record.  A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill legal obligations,
such as paying taxes, providing child support, and addressing other debts in a reasonable
manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of reliability required of those granted access to
classified information. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04926.a1
DATE: 12/20/2016
DATE: December 20, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04926
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
April 20, 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 September 22, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
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 has worked for his current employer since 2012.  He experienced about eight
months of unemployment prior to that.  His SOR alleges Federal income tax delinquencies of over
$30,000.  He made payment arrangements with the IRS in 2012 but failed to follow through.  The
next year, the IRS garnished his wages.  It is not clear from the record how much of his tax debt he
has paid, although Applicant’s installment agreement shows that he still owes nearly $12,000.  
In addition, Applicant’s SOR lists several judgments against him, as well as debts for
medical services and utilities.  Applicant is in arrears for child support payments for over $3,000. 
Although his wages have been garnished, Applicant did not provide documents to show how much
he has paid in child support.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to a paucity of record evidence concerning the circumstances underlying
Applicant’s financial problems and his efforts to resolve them.  Though noting events outside of
Applicant’s control that affected his finances, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not
demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to his documentary evidence, arguing that he has demonstrated mitigation. 
In a DOHA proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he or she should have a
security clearance.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Although Applicant presented some evidence in his
Answer to the SOR and Response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Judge’s overall
1We received Applicant’s brief on November 7, 2016.  He submitted a second brief on November 28, 2016. 
The Directive authorizes only one brief from each party.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-09245 at 2, note 1 (App. Bd. Jul.
8, 2014).  Therefore, we cannot consider the second brief.  
2
conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion is supportable based on this record.  A
person who fails repeatedly to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes, providing child support,
and addressing other debts in a reasonable manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of
reliability required of those granted access to classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-
01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record, including the documents that he submitted in his
Response to the FORM.  Neither has he 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).
The Judge examined the relevant data 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 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
3