KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant describes his difficulties in working out a repayment plan with the IRS;
asserts that his problems were not due to irresponsibility; and notes that his credit reports do not
show any additional financial delinquencies.  He also cites to his character evidence. 
Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of
the evidence in the record or to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01791.a1
DATE: 09/13/2018
DATE: September 13, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01791
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 10, 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 June 21, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Jennifer Goldstein 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 and Analysis
Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts.  The ones that the Judge found against him
were a $5,000 judgment owed to a bank, a Federal tax lien in the amount of about $25,600, and a
collection account for a little over $4,000 resulting from an automobile repossession.  Applicant
speculates that the judgment in favor of the bank was for a credit card.  He has never paid it, and it
is unresolved.  The tax lien resulted from Applicant’s having failed to ensure that the correct
amounts were withheld from his pay.  Applicant entered into installment agreements at various times
but they were cancelled due to nonpayment.  In the summer of 2017 Applicant hired a lawyer to
assist him in resolving his tax problems.  The firm requested a payment agreement with the IRS but
as of the close of the record one had not been approved.  Applicant has not been able to reach an
agreement with the creditor concerning the automobile repossession.  Applicant attributed his
financial problems to the economic downturn of a few years ago as well as to a reduction in the
hours he was allowed to work, resulting in a diminution of pay.  His wife also experienced
unemployment from early 2014 until early 2016.
The Judge acknowledged that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by circumstances
outside his control, such as a loss of income.  However, she concluded that Applicant had not
demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts.  Although Applicant has contacted a law firm
to resolve his tax liability, she noted that there is no evidence that any payments have been received. 
She stated that there is no evidence that he is making a good-faith effort to pay his creditors.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief cites to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Regarding matters that are properly before us, Applicant describes his
difficulties in working out a repayment plan with the IRS; asserts that his problems were not due to
irresponsibility; and notes that his credit reports do not show any additional financial delinquencies. 
He also cites to his character evidence.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or 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. 17-02391 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018).
2
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes
when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those
granted access to classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01256 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug.
3, 2018).  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: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale                 
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3