KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant claims the lien is not for unpaid taxes but resulted from a lapse in mandatory
vehicle insurance coverage.  He also claims he is disputing that debt.  The Judge’s findings and
conclusions about the tax lien are based on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same
record.” Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02974.a1
DATE: 09/13/2018
DATE: September 13, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02974
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 19, 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 decision
on the written record.  On June 26, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant served in the military for over 20 years and, since then, has worked for Federal
contractors.  His security clearance was last granted in 2002.  The SOR alleged that Applicant had
three delinquent debts.  These included a collection account for about $3,000, a charged-off account
for about $1,800, and a state tax lien for about $18,300.  Applicant admitted each debt with brief
explanations.  He provided no documents showing payments toward the debts or reflecting his
current financial situation.  The Judge found against him on each debt.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant claims the lien is not for unpaid taxes but resulted from a lapse
in mandatory vehicle insurance coverage.  He also claims he is disputing that debt.  In the decision,
the Judge discounted Applicant’s claim about the nature of the lien and concluded it was more likely
the result of Applicant and his wife failing to file or pay their state income taxes.  We note that
Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) contains a Notice of Lien of Judgment for
Unpaid Taxes filed by the state for the exact amount specified in the SOR allegation.  FORM Item
7.  From our review of the record, the Judge’s findings and conclusions about the tax lien are based
on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
Applicant also raises issues about his background investigation and character references. 
In discussing his security clearance status, he notes that he was interviewed by four different
investigators who each seemed to start from the beginning, and he believes they may have
inadvertently left out information from their reports.  He also argues that the Judge should have had
access to his character references to verify he was not a security risk.  The FORM does not contain
summaries of the interviews with Applicant’s character references.  We note the FORM was mailed
to Applicant on January 8, 2018.  He acknowledged receipt of it on January 19, 2018.   He was given
30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters.  He was advised that, if he
did not file objections or submit additional matters, his case would be assigned to a Judge “for a
determination based solely on this file of relevant material.” [Emphasis added.] FORM at 5. 
Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider
matters that were not contained in the FORM, it was his obligation to provide that information.  The
issues Applicant has raised about his background investigation and character references merit no
relief.  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence.  These arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence
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 also requests that his case be remanded so that he can present
2
supporting evidence.  The Appeal Board is only authorized to remand a case to correct an identified
error.  Directive ¶ E3.1.33.2.  Applicant has failed to establish any error that warrants a remand. 
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