KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given evidence that Applicant’s poor record keeping contributed to her problem and
to evidence that she did not file her returns by the end of 2015 as she promised, we cannot say
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07923.a1
DATE: 06/12/2017
DATE: June 12, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07923
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 5, 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 decision
on the written record.  On April 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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 weighed the evidence in
a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was first granted a security clearance in 1981.  She experienced a year of
unemployment from 2012 to 2013 and again for about four months in 2014.  She used her savings
to support herself during these periods.  Applicant failed to file Federal and state income tax returns
for 2011 through 2014.  She attributed that failure to poor record keeping and to the fact that she was
living in one state while providing care for her elderly mother who lived in another.  She maintained
her own finances as well as those of her mother, which became confusing, with the result that she
could not provide records for 2011.  This, in turn, affected subsequent years.  She told her clearance
interviewer that she would have her taxes filed by December 2015.  A tax company submitted a
letter dated April 2016 in which it disclosed that it had prepared Applicant’s returns for 2011
through 2015 and will submit them upon receipt of relevant information from Applicant.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected her tax difficulties. 
However, she also noted that Applicant had not filed her returns by the end of 2015, as she had
promised, nor had she done so by the close of the record.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge
stated that Applicant had been granted a clearance as early as 1981 and that she had experienced
difficulties that exerted an impact on her tax delinquencies.  However, as of June 2016, Applicant
had not filed her returns.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She argues that the Judge erred in concluding that she had not presented
evidence of financial responsibility.  However, both in her findings and in her analysis, the Judge
cited to evidence favorable to Applicant, including the letter from the tax company promising to file
Applicant’s returns by April 2016.  Given evidence that Applicant’s poor record keeping contributed
to her problem and to evidence that she did not file her returns by the end of 2015 as she promised,
we cannot say that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).
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