KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief includes a substantial information from outside the record, including
one document that post-dates the Decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
Applicant cites to efforts at debt resolution, filing of tax returns, etc.  Applicant has not rebutted
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Neither has Applicant
shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law. Failure to comply with Federal and state tax laws suggests that an applicant has
a problem with abiding by well-established Government rules and regulations, voluntary
compliance with which is essential for protecting classified information.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 12-07229.a1
DATE: 01/13/2017
DATE: January 13, 2017
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-07229
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
August 27, 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 October 27, 2016, after considering the record, 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 raises 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 as a Federal contractor since at least 1999.  Divorced, she has three
children.  She has a bachelor’s degree.  Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts for consumer
accounts, student loans, a debt to a Federal agency, and a medical expense.  In addition, Applicant
failed to file Federal and state income tax returns for 2009 through 2013.  
Applicant attributed her financial problems to a divorce, a large mortgage loan, and financial
assistance to adult children.  Applicant failed to provide documentary evidence showing that her
delinquent debts had been resolved.  Additionally, the delinquent tax filings were “largely
unresolved.”  Decision at 3.  Applicant did, however, submit tax records showing that she had made
some progress on her Federal taxes.  She submitted nothing regarding her state income tax returns. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that one debt, the medical bill, had been resolved.  He stated that Applicant
had done little if anything, however, to address the remaining allegations.  He noted evidence that
Federal debts, such as the student loans, were the subject of garnishment orders, “which belies a
good-faith effort to pay.”  Id. at 6.  He found her tax issues to be of particular concern.  Although
she had filed Federal and state returns for 2010 and 2011, those for 2009, 2012, and 2013 were still
outstanding.  The Judge stated that Applicant had shown poor judgment over the years, as reflected
in her willful neglect of her tax obligations.  He concluded that Applicant’s tax problems are too
longstanding and too recent to permit a favorable decision.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes a substantial amount of information from outside the record,
including at least one document that post-dates the Decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on
2
appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant cites to efforts at debt resolution, the garnishment actions
against her, her filing of tax returns, etc.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov.
22, 2016).  Neither has Applicant shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27,
2016). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  Failure to comply with Federal and state tax
laws suggests that an applicant has a problem with abiding by well-established Government rules
and regulations, voluntary compliance with which is essential for protecting classified information. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686, supra, at 2.  “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