KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation
for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-04986.a1
DATE:  04/21/2017
DATE: April 21, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04986
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Richard L. Morris, Esq. 
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 21, 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 February 1, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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 failed to file his state income tax returns for 2012 and 2013.  He filed his 2012
return in 2015 and his 2013 return in 2016.  Applicant paid about $55 in satisfaction of his 2012 tax
delinquency and $6 toward satisfying his $76 delinquency for 2013.  Applicant made inconsistent
statements about his reason for having failed to file and pay his taxes.  In his security clearance
application, he stated that he had forgot.  In his security clearance interview, he stated that he had
not filed his 2012 return because he did not have the funds.  In his Answer to the SOR, he attributed
his failures to file to oversight.  He also stated that he thought he had filed his 2013 return until he
had received “notification” that he confirmed with the state taxing authorities.  Decision at 3. 
Applicant took exception to Department Counsel’s argument that he had resolved his tax problems
only because he was undergoing a renewal of his clearance.  He stated that he resolved his tax
problems because he understood his obligation to do so.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s tax delinquencies raised concerns under Guideline F. 
He also concluded that Applicant had not mitigated those concerns.  He noted prior Appeal Board
decisions to the effect that failure to file and pay taxes when due impugns an applicant’s judgment
and reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04437 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016), which the Judge
cited.  He stated that Applicant’s “varying explanations for failing to file his state taxes did not
enhance his position.”  Decision at 7.  He concluded that Applicant knew of his duty to file and pay
his taxes, which detracted from his effort to explain his conduct.  The Judge also observed that
Applicant had waited for several years to file his returns, which detracted from Applicant’s favorable
evidence.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions and the
whole-person factors.  He cites to his clean disciplinary record, his years of holding a security
clearance without incident, his community involvement, etc.  He argues that the Judge failed to
consider this evidence, applying instead a “strict liability” approach to Applicant’s tax problem. 
 
A Judge is required to consider the entirety of the record evidence, which is the essence of
the whole-person concept.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016).  A
Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  A Judge is not required to discuss every piece of evidence,
however, which would be nearly impossible.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05396 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan.
10, 2017).  Our reading of the case file provides no reason to conclude that the Judge failed in his
responsibility to consider the entirety of the evidence.  The Judge cited to favorable evidence, such
as Applicant’s family circumstances, his education, and his years of working for a Defense
contractor.  However, as he noted in the Analysis portion of the Decision, failure to file tax returns
and pay taxes when due suggest that an applicant has difficulty complying with rules and
regulations.  This, in turn, raises a reasonable concern that the applicant may decline to follow other
rules, such as those governing access to classified information.  In a DOHA proceeding, it is the
applicant who must bear the burden of persuasion as to mitigation of the concerns raised by the SOR
and evidenced in the file.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Given Applicant’s inconsistent explanations for his
security-significant conduct, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had
failed to meet his burden.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all
of the evidence in the record or that he failed properly to weigh that evidence.  ISCR Case No. 13-
00502 at 3, supra.  We find no reason to conclude that the Judge failed properly to evaluate
Applicant’s case for mitigation in light of the whole-person concept.  
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.”
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board