DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ISCR Case No. 15-05824
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On July 29, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006.  1
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM)
In this case, the SOR was issued under Adjudicative Guidelines effective within the Defense Department      1
on September 1, 2006. Revised Adjudicative Guidelines were issued on December 10, 2016, and became
effective on June 8, 2017. My decision and formal findings under the revised Guideline F would not be
different under the 2006 Guidelines.
1
dated October 27, 2016.  Applicant received the FORM on November 21, 2016. He did2
not submit any material in response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on
August 8, 2017. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the sole allegation in the SOR
under Guideline F, with explanations. (Item 1)
Applicant is 42 years old. He graduated from high school in 1993 and obtained
an undergraduate degree in 2012. He is single and has no children.  He has worked for
his current employer since 2014. He completed his security clearance application (SCA)
in 2015. (Item 3)
The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file Federal and state income tax
returns for at least tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013, as required. He
volunteered in his answer to the SOR that he did not file his state taxes for years 2009,
2010, 2011 2012, and 2013. He noted that he was not required to file a tax return in
2010, because he earned less than the standard exemption. In 2016, he told the
clearance interviewer that he did not file his Federal income tax return in 2013, because
he tried to buy a stamp from the post office but the postal worker would not sell him just
one stamp. (Item 3) The IRS transcripts provided by the Government reveal that the
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 tax returns have been filed as of June 2016. (Item 4) There is
no information concerning the 2013 Federal tax return. Applicant claimed that he paid
delinquent tax for 2009 and 2010. He did not explain why he could not file his income
tax returns for those years. He also did not disclose this information on his SCA. (Item
3)
Applicant was unemployed for various periods of time, but he did not present any
nexus between the unemployment and not filing his Federal or state tax returns. There
is no information in that regard concerning any filing of state income tax returns. 
Applicant did not provide any evidence that would mitigate the security concern
under the financial considerations guideline. He did not comply with the requirement to
file tax returns for a number of years and he gave no credible reasons why. He has not  
met his burden of proof in this case to mitigate the security concerns under the financial
considerations guideline.
   Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
The Government submitted four items for the record.      2
2
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(a), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I
have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the
evidence contained in the record. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven
by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance6
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
3
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a8
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgement, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individuals’ reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to
protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be
caused or exacerbated by, and thus be a possible indicator of, other
issues of personnel security concerns such as excessive gambling,
mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or
dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at a greater
risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to
generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal
activity, including espionage.
The Government provided credible evidence that Applicant failed to file Federal
and state income tax returns timely for the tax years 2008 through 2013. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19 (f) (failure to file or
fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay
annual Federal, state or local income tax as required) applies. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns.  
 Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (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, or good judgment) does not apply.  Applicant did not provide any
explanations for the lack of filings. It appears from the IRS account transcripts (Item 4)
that in 2016, some returns were filed. In addition, (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(g) (the individual
has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount
owed and is in compliance with those arrangements) partially applies. However, there is
no information concerning the state income tax returns. 
 Id.      8
4
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 42 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2014. He failed
to file Federal and state income tax returns for many years and provided no credible
reason. He repeatedly failed to comply with his legal obligation. He presented no
information that he has been responsible concerning his Federal and state income
taxes during the intervening years. He has not met his burden of proof in this case.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F : AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
5
 Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is  not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge
6