KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s ruling on Applicant’s 180-day request is not contained in the record.  In
the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant was granted the 30-day extension and “was given
over 50 days to submit post-hearing documents.”  The Judge’s comments in the decision are
sufficient to establish that the 180-day extension request was denied.  A challenge to a judge’s
ruling denying a request to extend the deadline of a post-hearing submission is reviewed under
the “abuse of discretion” standard.  Applicant has not established that the Judge abused her
discretion in denying his 180-day post-hearing submission extension request. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01214.a1
DATE: 08/28/2018
DATE: August 28, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 16-01214
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 trustworthiness designation. 
On August 18, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Department
Counsel requested a hearing.  On May 17, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness
designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR, as amended, alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, Federal tax returns
for 2009-2014, amended Federal tax returns for 2007 and 2008, State A tax returns for 2009-2014, 
State B tax return for 2014, and State C tax returns for 2009-2013.  The SOR also alleged that he
had three state tax liens filed against him between 2009-2011.  The Judge found against Applicant
on the tax filing deficiencies and in favor of him on the tax liens.   For a time, Applicant owed or
worked for a business that provided services in several states.   In his security clearance application,
he disclosed that he had tax filing deficiencies and noted that the tax returns were tied up in a
divorce proceeding.  At the hearing, he testified that he did not file his 2009-2014 Federal and state
tax returns and estimated that he owed about $116,000 in past-due taxes for 2009-2013.  He stated
he did not have access to tax documents after he moved out of the marital home.  He acknowledged
that he should have filed separately for the years in question.  The Judge concluded that “Applicant’s
continued delay in complying with his legal duty to file six years of tax returns casts doubt on his
current trustworthiness.”  Decision at 6. 
A portion of Applicant’s appeal brief is devoted to discussing the tax liens.  We need not
address the tax liens because the Judge found in favor of Applicant on those debts.   
In his appeal brief, Applicant also challenges the Judge’s denial of his request for a 180-day
extension to submit post-hearing matters.  At the hearing held on January 31, 2018, the Judge left
the record open until February 23, 2018, for Applicant to submit additional matters.  On February
23, 2018, Applicant submitted a document in which he requested a 30-day extension to submit
documentation concerning the liens and requested a 180-day extension to present documentation
concerning the filing of his tax returns.  At some point after the hearing, a new department counsel
was assigned to this case.  The new department counsel did not object to the 30-day extension
request but objected to the 180-day extension request.  The Judge’s ruling on Applicant’s 180-day
request is not contained in the record.  In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant was granted
the 30-day extension and “was given over 50 days to submit post-hearing documents.”  Decision at
2.  The Judge’s comments in the decision are sufficient to establish that the 180-day extension
request was denied.  A challenge to a judge’s ruling denying a request to extend the deadline of a
post-hearing submission is reviewed under the “abuse of discretion” standard.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 09-01175 at 3 (App. Bd. May 11, 2010).   In this case, Applicant has not established that the
Judge abused her discretion in denying his 180-day post-hearing submission extension request.
In his appeal brief, Applicant also contends the Judge’s decision is incorrect and highlights
2
that he has held a position of trust for over three and a half years without any incidents. This
argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and is not sufficient
to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017).
Applicant’s brief fails to establish the Judge committed any harmful error.  The Judge
examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The
decision is sustainable on this record.  The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set
forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances:
such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the
national security.’”   Id.   See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale         
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4