KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal argues for an alternative weighing of the evidence.  He contends,
among other matters, that he always filed his income tax returns in a timely manner before 2013,
that he was unable to file the income tax returns in question because of a marital dispute; and
that he resolved a tax lien.  He argues that his tax problems were infrequent and occurred under
extreme circumstances that are unlikely to recur.  However, an applicant’s disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions
in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02843.a1
DATE: 08/22/2018
DATE: August 22, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02843
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Darryl E. Robinson, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 29, 2017, 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 May 25, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the
Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant, 62, has been married for over 35 years.  He worked for a Federal agency for about
12 years before starting to work for a defense contractor in 2012.  In security clearance applications,
he disclosed that he had Federal tax liens filed against him in 2008 and 2009.  In responding to
interrogatories, he admitted that he did not file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013-
2016. 
Applicant attributed a Federal tax lien filed against him for about $63,000 in 2005 to a failed
business venture and a penalty for a 401(k) withdrawal.  The lien was paid in 2009.  He attributed
his tax filing deficiencies to marital disagreements that started in 2013, resulted in a separation in
2014, and ended in a reconciliation in 2015.  He has provided a tax preparer the pertinent
information to file the tax returns.  
In 2008, a Federal tax lien was filed against Applicant for about $37,000.  In a background
interview, he stated he was making monthly payment to the IRS of $1,220 and provided proof of
five monthly payments in 2017.  He did not provide documentation confirming the current status
of that lien.  In 2009, a Federal tax lien was filed against him for about $11,300, but it was released
in 2017.  He and his wife earn at least $140,000 annually.  He is working with a tax preparer to
resolve his tax issues.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant has not filed his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013-2016 and has an
outstanding Federal tax lien from 2008.  He did not provide a good explanation for his tax problems. 
In 2017, he resolved a lien for a tax liability dating back ten years.  The actions he has taken to
resolve his tax problems are not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns.  
Discussion
2
Applicant’s appeal argues for an alternative weighing of the evidence.  He  contends, among
other matters, that he always filed his income tax returns in a timely manner before 2013, that he
was unable to file the income tax returns in question because of a marital dispute; and that he
resolved a tax lien.  He argues that his tax problems were infrequent and occurred under extreme
circumstances that are unlikely to recur.  However, an applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun.
27, 2016).
 Applicant’s appeal 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 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: Charles C. Hale           
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3