KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant was terminated from a job for refusing to complete Federal income tax
forms.  He also has seven unsatisfied state tax liens.  Noting Applicant’s contention that he had
completed the Federal tax forms, the Judge cited to record evidence establishing the contrary. 
Despite Applicant’s argument that the state tax liens were “unfounded,” the Judge stated that
they were supported by the record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04233.a1
DATE: 10/25/2018
DATE: October 25, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04233
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 August 21, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Phillip 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 findings contained errors
and whether the Judge’s overall decision failed to consider the entirety of the record evidence. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant was terminated from a job for refusing to complete Federal income tax forms.  He
also has seven unsatisfied state tax liens.  Noting Applicant’s contention that he had completed the
Federal tax forms, the Judge cited to record evidence establishing the contrary.  Despite Applicant’s
argument that the state tax liens were “unfounded,” the Judge stated that they were supported by the
record.  The Judge found that Applicant has had “a problematic financial history when it comes to
his state income tax obligations and those financial problems continue to this day.”  Decision at 5. 
He stated that there is no evidence to suggest that Applicant’s state tax problems were caused by
circumstances beyond his control or that any other mitigating condition applied.  The Judge stated
that Applicant’s reasons for having failed to complete his Federal tax forms were frivolous.  He
concluded that Applicant failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  
Discussion
 
Applicant’s brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Many of his arguments reflect ones that he made in answering the SOR and in response to the File
of Relevant Material.  These arguments appear to question the legal authority of the government,
whether Federal or state, to impose and enforce tax obligations.  He also contends that he is not
aware of any sufficient basis for the tax liens secured by his state.  Many of Applicant’s arguments
can properly be characterized as frivolous, as the Judge did.  To the extent that Applicant is arguing
that the liens are not supported by the evidence, we hold to the contrary.  The Judge’s material
findings are based upon substantial evidence.    See ISCR Case No. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep.
10, 2018).  Applicant cites to his work history and to an absence of evidence that he has ever
committed a security violation.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Id.
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
2
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