KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argues that he was addressing his tax problems in a reasonable manner.  He
argues specifically that the record does not support the Judge’s conclusion that it was the
issuance of the SOR that prompted him to resolve his tax problem.  Applicant’s argument is 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: 17-04353.a1
DATE: 09/19/2018
DATE: September 19, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04353
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
January 17, 2018, 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 July 10, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas 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 experienced financial problems due to tenants’ failure to pay rent and to a lengthy
period of underemployment.  He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and was discharged in
2012.  Applicant has a Federal tax lien, which he claimed that he would resolve through refinancing
his house.  He also stated that he had contacted the IRS about a payment plan but did not follow
through because he thought that the refinancing would resolve his tax problem.  In May 2018, in
response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Applicant presented evidence of a payment plan
of $2,000 a month, along with a single payment in furtherance of the plan.  Applicant’s evidence
stated that he owed $168,004 to the IRS.
The Judge concluded that the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s bankruptcy were
mitigated  (although, his formal finding on that allegation was against Applicant).  However, he
reached the opposite conclusion concerning the tax debt.  He noted that Applicant regained full time
employment in 2015 yet did not begin to address his tax lien until after he had received the SOR. 
The Judge concluded that the “inference is unmistakable that the issuance of the SOR and the filing
of the FORM prompted Applicant to address his delinquent federal income tax debts.”  Decision at
5.  The Judge also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt
payment.
Discussion  
Applicant’s appeal brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  Applicant cites to evidence of his efforts to address his tax problems.  For example, in his
security clearance application (SCA), Applicant stated that he was working to resolve a tax debt to
his state.  Item 3, SCA, at 35-36.  He argues that he was addressing his tax problems in a reasonable
manner.  He argues specifically that the record does not support the Judge’s conclusion that it was
the issuance of the SOR that prompted him to resolve his tax problem.  Applicant’s argument is 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).  The Judge’s conclusion that
Applicant had not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns arising from his substantial
tax debt is sustainable.
2
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: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3