KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  Applicant argues that the Government failed to prove he made financial decisions that
raised security concerns.  This argument lacks merit.  The Judge’s material findings about
Applicant’s delinquent medical debt and his state tax filing delinquencies for 2011-2013 were
based on substantial evidence or constituted reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO:  15-03160.a1
DATE:  05/10/2017
DATE:  May 10, 2017
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03160
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
March 24, 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 February 16, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative
Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 erred in his application
of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the
Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a Government contractor.  In his response to the
SOR, Applicant neither admitted nor denied the allegations and the Judge considered his responses
to be denials.  The alleged state tax liens and another debt were listed on credit reports offered into
evidence.  Applicant satisfied the state tax liens through a wage garnishment.  
The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his state income tax returns for 2009-2013.  He
was not required to file a income tax return in the specified state for 2009 and filed for 2010.  He
has yet to satisfy a past-due medical debt for about $355 or file state income tax returns for 2011,
2012, and 2013. 
The Judge’s Analysis
From 2011-2013, Applicant failed to file state income tax returns and accumulated a
significant amount of delinquent tax debt.  The evidence was sufficient to establish Disqualifying
Conditions 19(a) “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;”  19(c) “history of not meeting
financial obligations;” and 19(g) “failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or the fraudulent filing of the same[.]” Mitigating Conditions 20(a)1 and 20(b)2 are not
applicable because Applicant continues to be delinquent on his state tax filings and has failed to
address a medical debt.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the alleged state tax liens.  
  
Discussion
Much of Applicant’s Appeal Brief addresses matters that are not contained in the record of
the proceeding.  Specifically, he contends “at the time of the Administrative Judge’s decision the 
. . . evidence in the record was incomplete” (Appeal Brief at 3) and proceeds to make arguments
based on purported events for which no evidence was presented to the Judge for consideration. 
Those purported events and the arguments based on them constitute new evidence that the Appeal
Board cannot consider.  See, Directive E3.1.29.  
Applicant argues that the Government failed to prove he made financial decisions that raised
1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(a) states: “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment[.]”
2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b) states: “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”
security concerns.  This argument lacks merit.  As the Judge found, credit reports admitted into
evidence established the delinquent medical debt.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-00046 at 2 (App. Bd.
Feb. 10, 2012) for the proposition that it is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report
can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the Government’s burden of production
under Directive E3.1.14.  In his security clearance application, Applicant disclosed that he did not
file his 2011 and 2012 state income tax returns as required.  Government Exhibit (GE) 1.  His
background interview established his state tax filing delinquency for 2013.  GE 2.  In his post-
hearing submission, he stated that he “failed to follow up on an extension to file [his] individual state
tax returns for 2011 through 2013" and that his accountant “is prepared to provide them” . . .  “in
order to conclude my obligations in this matter.”  Applicant Exhibit K.  The Judge’s material
findings about Applicant’s delinquent medical debt and his state tax filing delinquencies for 2011-
2013 were based on substantial evidence or constituted reasonable inferences that could be drawn
from the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).  Moreover, the
Directive presumes there is an nexus between proven facts under any of the Guidelines and an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 2 (App. Bd.
Mar. 9, 2017).  We find no error in the Judge’s conclusion that Disqualifying Conditions 19(a),
19(c), and 19(g) apply in this case.
Applicant also argues for application of Mitigating Condition 20(d)3 and, in doing so, cites
to his resolution of the past-due state taxes.  We note that the Judge found in favor of Applicant on
the alleged state tax liens because they were paid through a wage garnishment.  We find no error in
the Judge not addressing Mitigating Condition 20(d) during his analysis of Applicant’s medical debt
or state tax filing delinquencies. 
Applicant asserts the Judge erred in excluding from evidence a state document pertaining
to his amendment of his 2014 state income tax return.  After the hearing, the Judge left the record
open until September 12, 2016, for Applicant to submit additional matters.  During that period,
Applicant submitted two documents that were admitted into evidence.  On January 2, 2017, almost
four months after the record closed, Applicant submitted the document in question.  Department
Counsel objected to the document, and the Judge did not admit it into evidence.  We review a
Judge’s evidentiary rulings to see if they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 12-02296 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 12, 2014).  We find no error in the Judge excluding from
evidence the document in question.  We also note no SOR allegation pertains to either Applicant’s
filing of a state income tax return for 2014 or his payment of state taxes for that year.  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to claims that the Judge did not consider all
the evidence or mis-weighed the evidence.  These arguments, however, are neither enough to rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor 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. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017).  Additionally, we find no basis for
concluding the Judge erred in his whole-person analysis.
3 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d) states: “the individual initiated good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts[.]” 
The Judge examined the relevant data 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 when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required
of those granted access to classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08782 at 3 (App. Bd.
Apr. 5, 2017).  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 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:  James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board