KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant owes over $43,000 to his state and a little over $11,700 to the IRS for back
taxes. Applicant’s brief cites to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider.
Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01828.a1
DATE: 02/26/2018
DATE: February 26, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01828
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
August 8, 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 November 14, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 works for a Federal contractor in an overseas location.  He served in the military 
until his retirement in 2009.  Divorced, he remarried and has four adult children.  Applicant held
clearances while on active duty.  Applicant owes over $43,000 to his state and a little over $11,700
to the IRS for back taxes.  Applicant attributed his tax problems to overseas deployments, his
employer having improperly completed his W-4, a period of unemployment from late 2013 to late
2014, and to his reliance upon his uncle to file his returns.  Although the uncle had been trained as
a tax preparer, Applicant described him as “reclusive, prone to panic attacks, and possibly suffering
from dementia.”  Decision at 3.  Applicant stated that he had hired a tax lawyer to assist him in
resolving his problems, but did not describe the services provided or work performed.  
The Judge held the record open after the hearing to enable Applicant to submit evidence
about the release of tax liens and the nature of his uncle’s tax work on his behalf.  However,
Applicant’s submission was not responsive.   Applicant’s monthly take-home pay is about $8,000
plus another $3,000 for his retirement and disability pay.  After paying expenses, he has about
$8,000 left over at the end of each month.  He provided no evidence of financial counseling or other
such assistance.  Applicant has served the nation for over 30 years, including multiple overseas
deployments.
The Judge’s Analysis
  
The Judge found that Applicant’s overseas service, with its limited communication, was a
condition beyond his control.  However, the Judge also found that Applicant had not provided
evidence of responsible action in regard to his debts.  Although he had been aware of his tax
problems for several years, he had not resolved them as of the close of the record.  The Judge noted
Applicant’s exemplary service to the U.S. but concluded that Applicant has not squarely addressed
the allegations against him and has not met his burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief cites to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  He describes his military career and his service as a contractor, his uncle’s
difficult circumstances, and his efforts at resolving his tax problems.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed
the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 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,
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.”
2
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
3