KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant contends that his financial record does not support a conclusion that he is
unable or unwilling to pay his debts. However, evidence that Applicant has had delinquent debts
for several years, including one for Federal taxes, is sufficient to raise a concern under Guideline
F that Applicant may be deficient in the reliability expected of those with access to classified
information. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04693.a1
DATE: 07/26/2017
DATE: July 26, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04693
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
January 9, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On May 23, 2017, after
considering the record, 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 erred in finding that he
had deliberately omitted information from his security clearance application (SCA), whether the
Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F, 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 is an employee of a Defense contractor.  His SOR lists several delinquent debts. 
The ones that the Judge resolved adversely to Applicant were a Federal tax lien and a debt for
reimbursement to a Federal agency for overpayment.  Regarding the tax lien, which was filed in
2012, Applicant had a repayment plan but missed payments, resulting in the plan being voided.  He
stated that he notified the IRS that he had to make unexpected car repairs and that his mother had
health problems.  In his clearance interview, Applicant surmised that the tax lien could have resulted
from taxes owed on a new car.  The overpayment by the other agency resulted from Applicant’s
having worked overseas and having received additional pay.  He continued to receive some of that
additional pay after returning stateside.  His requested for a waiver of reimbursement was denied. 
He did not corroborate his claim that he had paid $6,000 on this debt.
In completing his SCA, Applicant did not disclose the tax lien or the underlying tax
delinquency.  He did not disclose other debts as well, including one resulting from a real estate
foreclosure.  Applicant may have been unaware of some of his debts, but at the time he completed
his SCA Applicant knew that he had unpaid taxes and that he had not paid his mortgage.  Applicant
intentionally falsified his SCA.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his
debts, nor had he presented evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve them.  He cited to a lack of
corroboration for some of Applicant’s claims as well as evidence regarding the extent and the age
of Applicant’s financial problems.  The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions
applied to Applicant’s false statements on the SCA.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes evidence not contained in the record.  We cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding of deliberate
falsification.  He states that he understands the requirements for holding a clearance and would never
intentionally withhold information.  Examining the decision in light of the record, however, we
conclude that the challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-01285 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 22, 2016).  Applicant contends that his financial record does not
support a conclusion that he is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.  However, evidence that
Applicant has had delinquent debts for several years, including one for Federal taxes, is sufficient
to raise a concern under Guideline F that Applicant may be deficient in the reliability expected of
those with access to classified information.  See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18.  Applicant cites to
his favorable evidence, such as his having held a clearance during his service with the other
Government agency.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of
the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). 
Despite Applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the
requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that he considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his
decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel
being considered for national security eligibility 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: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board