KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03053.a1
DATE: 08/06/2018
DATE: August 6, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03053
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
September 28, 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 April 12, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 in his 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 owns a small company and did not pay all of his business and personal taxes for
2002, 2003, 2005 through 2012, and 2014.  The IRS filed five Federal tax liens against his business
between 2012 and 2015 totaling about $142,000 and filed five Federal tax liens against him
personally between 2010 and 2013 totaling about $360,000.  Applicant attributed his tax deficiencies
to “a bad period of time in [his] life going through a divorce, and really didn’t care about a lot of
things and two of them were [his] personal and business taxes.”  Decision at 3.  He realized he
needed to get his life in order and set up an installment agreement with the IRS in 2013.  He
completed paying the business taxes in 2016, and the liens against his company were released.  
In 2016, Applicant entered into an installment agreement with the IRS to pay his personal
taxes.  Under that agreement , he was to pay about $3,300 per month on an amount that rose to over
$401,000 with interest and penalties.  “[He] made most of the payments on a timely basis.”  Decision
at 3.  Under a new agreement, he is to pay $4,220 per month on a balance of about $354,000 at the
beginning of 2018.  He planned to take out loans to pay his taxes.   He submitted a number of letters
attesting to his character and dependability.
 
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant is credited with starting to resolve his tax problems in 2013.  He resolved his
business tax problems first and has been paying on his personal tax problems since 2016.  He has
resolved two personal tax liens totaling over $100,000, which are mitigated.  Those payments are
impressive, but he still owes more than $350,000.  
Applicant’s tax problems raise security concerns about his willingness to comply with well-
established government rules.  His financial problems are recent, ongoing, and cast doubt on his
2
current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  Mitigating conditions 20(d)1 and 20(g)2 are
partially applicable, but are not sufficient to mitigate the alleged security concerns.
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the alleged
security concerns were not mitigated.  He cites to his payment plans, his resolution of the business
tax debts, and his consistent payments under the current personal tax payment plan.  He argues that
he has made consistent payments over the past five years and notes the Judge referred to his efforts
as impressive.   However, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge
to make a favorable security clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the
evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence,
or vice versa.  A party’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.”
1 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(d) states, “the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]”
2 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(g) states, “the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax
authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.”
3
Order
The Decision AFFIRMED.    
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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