KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: A person who repeatedly fails to fulfill legal obligations does not demonstrate the
degree of reliability expected of those with access to classified information.  A Judge has no
authority to serve as an investigator in a case. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the
evidence in the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 15-03458.a1
DATE: 12/08/2016
DATE: December 8, 2016
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03458
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
November 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) and Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 26, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 59 year old, has worked for a government contractor since October 2013. 
He is divorced and has a minor son.  He attributed his Federal and state tax problems to his
depression, his mother passing away in 2006, his wife cheating on him in 2007, an accident at work
that cause him to be disabled in 2008, surgery for that injury in 2009, separation from his wife in
2009, and their divorce in 2011. 
Applicant failed to file his Federal income tax returns for 2009-2012 as required by law.  He
filed those tax returns between March 2014 and May 2014.  In 2010, a Federal tax lien in the
approximate amount of $10,000 was filed against him.  He owes about $32,000 in delinquent taxes
for 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.  He entered into an installment agreement with
the IRS to resolve the delinquent taxes and has made monthly payments of $50 since August 2015.
Applicant failed to file his state income tax returns for 2004 and 2008-2012 as required by
law.  He presented unsigned and undated state tax filings for 2008-2012 and no documentation for
2004.  He testified that all of the delinquent state tax returns were filed in 2014, but did not
substantiate that claim.  In 2012, a state tax lien in the approximate amount of $2,400 was filed
against him.  He testified that he resolved the tax lien though monthly payments.  The lien was
released in January 2016.  
The SOR also alleged that Applicant was indebted on two collection accounts totaling about
$1,100.  A credit report reflects these accounts have been in collection since March 2009.  Applicant
verbally requested documentation from collection agents to substantiate the debts, but was never
provided such information.  He testified the credit report entries could be in error, because the
reports contain an out-of-state address at which he never lived.  He failed to present documentation
to substantiate that he had a legitimate basis for disputing these debts.  These debts no longer appear
on his credit report.
In October 2013, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA).  In doing so,
he encountered computer difficulties, was unable to print the SCA to review it, and was instructed
that he could clarify matters during his background interview.  In the SCA, he responded “No” to
the question that asked, if in the past seven years, whether he failed to file or pay Federal, state, or
other taxes when required by law or ordinance, but did note “Extension filed, taxes currently being
processed.”  He also responded “No” to questions that asked, if in the past seven years, whether he
defaulted on any type of loan; whether he had any bills or debts turned over to a collection agency;
whether he had any account or credit card suspended, charged-off, or cancelled for failing to pay as
agreed; and whether he was currently 120 days delinquent on any debt.  He offered several
explanations for his answers to the tax question on the SCA, including that he “clicked the wrong
box.”  Decision at 5.  Contrary to his contention, his credit reports demonstrated the two collection
2
accounts were not outside the seven-year reporting requirement.  His explanations for his responses
to the above questions were not credible. 
Applicant presented three letters of recommendation and the signatures of 33 coworker who
attest that he is trustworthy and responsible.  He testified that he is able to meet his monthly
expenses and has about $200 to $300 in discretionary income each month. His credit reports reflect
no new delinquent debts.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted that Applicant’s failure to file his Federal income tax returns until after
meeting the Office of Personnel Management investigator suggests his questionable judgment
persists.  While he testified that he filed his delinquent state tax returns, he did not present sufficient
documentation to substantiate his claim.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the resolved state
tax lien.  He  did not present sufficient evidence to establish his two collection accounts have been
resolved.  He failed to demonstrate that future financial problems are unlikely.  Although he
attributed his financial problems to events beyond his control, he failed to demonstrate responsible
behavior concerning his debts after 2011.  His efforts to repay the delinquencies are minimal,
untimely, and do not establish responsible action under the circumstances.
On his SCA, Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his delinquent debts and his failure to
file and pay taxes as required by law.  He did not make a prompt and good-faith effort to correct his
falsification.  While he said that his human resources office told him he could clarify matters during
the background interview, that advice does not explain why he presented false information with
respect to his taxes.  He failed to take responsibility for his actions.   
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant submits various arguments challenging the Judge’s adverse
decision.  For example, he argues that he filed his delinquent Federal tax returns and entered into
an installment agreement for his Federal tax debt.  However, the Judge’s decision noted that his
taxes remained delinquent for several years and were not filed until after his security clearance
background interview.  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). The decision 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).  In essence, the
majority of Applicant’s arguments are a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence,
which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06634 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 28, 2016).
Applicant contends that he filed his delinquent state tax returns.  A review of the record,
however, supports the Judge’s determination that Applicant did not substantiate that he filed his state
3
tax returns for 2008-2012 in 2014 because the copies of those tax returns offered into evidence were
unsigned and undated.  While he also argues that he signed a release so that information about the
filing of his state tax returns could be obtained, he had the burden of presenting evidence in rebuttal,
extenuation, and mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Furthermore, a Judge is an impartial fact-finder
and has no authority to serve as an investigator in a case, which would be inconsistent with her role
as an independent fact finder.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03062 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 11,  2015). 
Applicant further argues that the Judge’s characterization of his Federal installment payments
as “minimal” was unfair because he was paying the amount the IRS recommended based on his
income and household expenses.  Considering the amount of past-due Federal taxes owed and the
amount of the installment payments, we find no error in the Judge’s characterization of those
payments.  Even if the Judge had not used that term, it is unlikely that she would have reached a
different conclusion.
Applicant challenges the Judge’s determination that he falsified his SCA.  He points out that
he did not have adequate financial information when he was filling out his SCA, noted in the SCA
that he was in the process of filing his tax returns, and disclosed information about his delinquent
tax returns in his background interview.  The Judge made findings of fact about those matters.  She
also found that he offered several different explanations for his response to the tax question on the
SCA and noted he contacted both his state and Federal taxing authorities about his unpaid and
unfiled tax returns in July 2013, about three months before completing his SCA.  She concluded that
he clearly was aware that he owed both state and Federal unpaid taxes when he completed his SCA. 
In evaluating whether his SCA responses were deliberate omissions, the Judge considered his
omissions in light of the record as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04226 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug.
18, 2015).  We find no error in the Judge’s falsification findings.
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.”
4
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan           
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
5