KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: An ability to argue for an alternative weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to show
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01750.a1
DATE: 10/11/2017
DATE: October 11, 2017
In Re:
----------------.
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01750
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Shawn C. Graham, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 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 hearing. 
On July 5, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 has worked for his current employer since 2014 and has worked in the Defense
industry for nearly 35 years.  He has held a clearance since 2000.  Applicant’s SOR contains one
allegation, that he owes the IRS about $32,000 for tax years 2011 through 2013.  He also owes his
state about $6,500 in delinquent taxes.  Applicant’s difficulties were caused by his not having
sufficient withholding from the profits arising from a real estate sale.  He experienced some
unemployment prior to his current job and exhausted his savings in order to pay his living expenses. 
He was not able to make his current payments as well as discharge his tax obligations.  
Applicant has now paid the IRS for tax years 2011 and 2012.  However, he currently owes
a little over $30,000 for taxes due for 2013 and for 2015.  He set up a payment plan with the IRS
after he received the SOR.  This plan, which the agency has approved, requires him to pay $388 a
month, although Applicant had not started making payments by the close of the record.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment, which was beyond his control.  She concluded,
however, that he had not acted responsibly in regard to his tax problem, in light of evidence that he
did not start paying his debts until he received the SOR.  She cited to Applicant’s agreement with
the IRS.  However, since he had not started actually complying with the plan, the Judge concluded
that he has not demonstrated that his security-significant conduct is being resolved.  In the whole-
person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s many years of working in the Defense industry. 
Despite this, Applicant’s tax delinquencies suggest that he has not shown the level of judgment
necessary for one who has access to classified information.
Discussion
 Although Applicant styled his first assignment of error as a challenge to the sufficiency of
the Judge’s findings of fact, the tenor of his argument appears to be that she did not extend
appropriate weight to favorable evidence, such as his IRS payment plan and the efforts he undertook
to obtain its approval, along with evidence that he has the financial resources to pay off his tax debts
should the plan not be sufficiently mitigating. An ability to argue for an alternative weighing of the
evidence is not 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. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24,
2017).  To the extent that Applicant has challenged the sufficiency of the findings, we conclude that
the Judge’s material findings “are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” 
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
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.  A person who fails to fulfill legal obligations, such as paying taxes when
due, may be lacking in the judgment and reliability required of those with access to classified
information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06707 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 15, 2017).  “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