KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: It is not inconsistent for a judge to acknowledge favorable evidence yet conclude that,
despite such evidence, an applicant has not mitigated the security concerns. An applicant bears
the burden of persuasion.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03978.a1
DATE: 03/31/2017
DATE: March 31, 2017
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03978
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 12, 2016, 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 hearing. 
On January 4, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis
was erroneous and 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 works for a Defense contractor.  He served in the military from 2001 until 2004,
when he received a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions.  Divorced and remarried,
Applicant has five children and a stepchild.
Applicant’s SOR alleges a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge that occurred in 2006, several
delinquent debts, and an allegation that he failed to file Federal tax returns for 2012 and 2013.  He
filed these returns in 2015.  He has installment agreements with the IRS for the payment of his tax
obligations.  Documentation from one installment agreement shows he owes a little over $17,200
in back taxes, penalties, and interest for 2010 and for 2012 through 2014.  He also owes about
$2,000 for 2015The Judge noted that Applicant’s failure to pay tax was not alleged.  He stated that
he would consider it on the issues of mitigation, the whole-person analysis, etc.  Decision at 3, n.6. 
Applicant has received financial counseling.  He stated that he is committed to paying his
taxes and maintaining financial health.  Applicant enjoys a good reputation for job performance, as
well as for dependability, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, and integrity.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the bankruptcy allegations in Applicant’s favor.  He also entered
favorable findings for Applicant’s delinquent debts, insofar as most had been resolved.  However,
he entered adverse findings regarding Applicant’s tax problems.  He concluded that, despite
Applicant’s having finally filed his returns and entered into installment agreements for the payment
of amounts owed, Applicant’s problems are not fully under control, citing to the original failure to
file and to evidence that Applicant owes back taxes for 2010 and 2012 through 2015.  
In the whole person analysis, the Judge considered Applicant’s military service, consistent
employment, and favorable character evidence.  He concluded, however, that Applicant’s ongoing
tax issues raised doubts about his fitness for a clearance.
Discussion
2
Applicant argues that the Judge’s analysis was not consistent.  He notes that the Judge made
findings about things that were favorable, such as his receipt of financial counseling, his announced
intention to pay his taxes, and his belief that he will not owe further taxes for 2016.  He argued that
the Judge’s adverse decision runs contrary to these findings, resulting in a “fragmented” analysis.
However, it is not inconsistent for a Judge to acknowledge favorable evidence yet conclude
that, despite such evidence, an applicant has not succeeded in mitigating the concerns arising from
his conduct or circumstances.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-24504 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Feb. 11, 2003). 
In that case, we stated that a Judge’s general findings that an applicant was of good character and
was trustworthy did not undermine his ultimate conclusion that the applicant was financially
irresponsible and had not mitigated her delinquent debts.  We stated that, in evaluating the whole-
person, a Judge is “required . . . to evaluate both favorable and unfavorable evidence . . . . Absent
a showing . . . that he did so in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, [we] will
not disturb the Judge’s findings and conclusions on appeal.”  
By the same token, in the case before us there is no contradiction between the Judge’s
findings about Applicant’s favorable evidence and his conclusion that this evidence was not entitled
to such weight as to resolve the concerns arising from Applicant’s failure to file his tax returns.  An
applicant bears the burden of persuasion, and the Judge did not err in considering, on the issue of
mitigation, evidence that Applicant continues to owe back taxes for several years.  Under the facts
of this case, the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is supportable.  Despite Applicant’s argument to
the contrary, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive, in that he considered the
totality of the record evidence in reaching his decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3
(App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016).
Applicant has cited to a Hearing Office case that he believes supports his effort to obtain a
clearance.  We give this case due consideration as persuasive evidence.  However, Hearing Office
decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 15-04096 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).   Moreover, there are factual differences between
the cited case and Applicant’s own.  Applicant has not provided a reason to conclude that the
Judge’s decision was in error.
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax
returns in a timely manner, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability
required of those granted access to classified information.  Failure to file tax returns suggests that
an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established rules and regulations.   Id.  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.”
3
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
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4