KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: After considering Applicant’s brief in its entirety, we conclude that it does not rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor does it show that
the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
To the extent that Applicant is arguing that his tax problems do not establish security concerns,
we note that the Directive explicitly identifies failure to file and pay taxes as something that
raises a security concern.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01007.a1
DATE: 11/21/2018
DATE: November 21, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01007
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 May
30, 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 August 31, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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
The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file Federal and state income returns for 2010
through 2013.  It also alleged that he owed the Federal Government over $17,000 in back taxes and
that he owed his state $32,000.  Applicant attributed his tax delinquencies to his attention having
been directed toward church activities and to his effort to adopt two nieces.  He also asserted that
his wife’s employer did not withhold a sufficient amount from her paychecks.  He stated that he had
hired a tax firm to file his taxes for him, but he contended that the firm did not enter into a payment
plan on his behalf.  The Judge found that Applicant’s 2017 Federal return was not filed on time; in
fact, it was filed six days after the hearing.
Applicant claimed that he had paid all of his delinquent tax obligations, although the Judge
found that he did not provide documentary evidence regarding his debt to the IRS.  Applicant uses
a commercial tax application that is user friendly and less expensive.  Because he has ceased his
music directing activity at his church, he now has more time to devote to his taxes.  In addition to
his tax problems, Applicant owed funds to a telecommunications company.  He did not provide
documentary evidence of his dispute of that debt.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the allegation regarding Applicant’s state tax debt in his favor.  As to his
adverse findings concerning the other SOR allegations, he stated that Applicant failed to
demonstrate how the duties at his church and his efforts to adopt his nieces constituted reasons to
have failed to file tax returns and pay the taxes due.  He also reiterated his finding that Applicant did
not substantiate his claim to have paid off his debt to the IRS, nor did Applicant corroborate his
claim to have filed his delinquent tax returns.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that, he believes, the Judge failed to consider.  He claims, for
example, that he provided evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that he has paid his
debt to the IRS.  He cites to his testimony about the stresses associated with his work at church and
2
with adopting his nieces, which he contends demonstrates that his failure to have filed his returns
was not a life-long habit but, rather, situational.  
After considering Applicant’s brief in its entirety, we conclude that it does not rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor does it show that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018).  To the extent that Applicant is arguing that
his tax problems do not establish security concerns, we note that the Directive explicitly identifies
failure to file and pay taxes as something that raises a security concern.  Directive, Encl. 2, App. A
¶ 19(f).  Moreover, the Directive presumes that there is a rational connection between admitted or
proved conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02595 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2018).   
The Judge’s findings and the record evidence underlying them that Applicant failed to file
tax returns for four consecutive years, his failure to have paid his Federal tax obligations, and his
failure to provide a sufficient explanation for these delinquencies support his adverse decision.  A
person who fails to abide by legal obligations, such as filing returns and paying taxes when due, does
not exhibit the good judgment and reliability expected of those with access to national security
information.    See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01256 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2018).      
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse 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.”
3
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
4