1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
REDACTED  ) ISCR Case No. 17-03814 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Nicholas T. Temple, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Michelle Daugherty, Esq. 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant and his spouse did not timely file their federal income tax returns for tax 
years 2012 through 2016, or their state income tax returns for tax years 2012 and 2014 
through 2016. Applicant and his in-laws had some difficult health issues, but they do not 
fully mitigate Applicant’s inattention to his tax-filing obligations for the past several years. 
Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On December 8, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security 
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The SOR explained why the DOD 
CAF was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue 
security clearance eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order 
(EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the National Security Adjudicative 
11/01/2018
2 
 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on January 13, 2018, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). 
On April 18, 2018, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine whether 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for 
Applicant. On April 23, 2018, I scheduled a hearing for May 15, 2018. 
 
On May 9, 2018, Applicant’s counsel entered her appearance. On May 11, 2018, 
she requested a continuance, and Department Counsel had no objection. On May 14, 
2018, I cancelled the hearing. On August 6, 2018, I rescheduled the hearing for September 
19, 2018.  
 
At the hearing, five Government exhibits (GEs 1-5) were admitted. A February 8, 
2018 letter forwarding the proposed GEs to Applicant was marked as a hearing exhibit (HE 
1) for the record but not admitted in evidence. Ten Applicant exhibits (AEs A-J) were 
admitted in evidence. Applicant and his spouse testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) 
received on October 1, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that Applicant failed to file his federal (SOR ¶ 
1.a) and state (SOR ¶ 1.b) income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2016. Applicant 
denied the allegations and indicated that there were extenuating circumstances. After 
considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 53 years old and a computer network administrator. He has an 
Associate Degree in applied electronics technology awarded in May 1986. (GE 1; AEs A, I.) 
He has worked for a succession of defense contractors at the same military installation 
from August 1992 to October 2012 and from June 2014 to present. He was granted a 
secret clearance in 1994 that was renewed in 2007. (GE 1; AE I; Tr. 22-23, 26.) 
 
Applicant and his spouse married in 2002. (GE 1.) She took responsibility for paying 
the bills and completing and filing their income tax returns from the start of their marriage. 
Their joint income tax returns were filed on time through tax year 2011, and they received 
refunds. (Tr. 73-74.) Applicant’s spouse worked full time for a communications company for 
almost 20 years. In August 2007, she acquired her real estate license. (Tr. 74.) 
 
Applicant was unemployed from October 2012 until June 2014 for medical reasons. 
He had major surgery in the fall of 2012 and, in June 2013, he developed serious medical 
complications that resulted in him being placed in a medically-induced coma for 52 days. 
He had subsequent medical setbacks. (Tr. 75-81.)  During his lengthy unemployment, 
Applicant’s spouse had a power-of-attorney to handle their finances. She had to reduce her 
work hours as a realtor to be with him when he was hospitalized, and then care for him 
when he was home. Applicant had some unemployment compensation and disability 
3 
 
income, but he also liquidated a 401(k) of approximately $152,000 in 2013, which paid for 
COBRA medical insurance coverage and their mortgage when he was out of work. (Tr. 29-
31, 78-83.) Applicant’s spouse did not file federal or state income tax returns for tax year 
2012, and their federal return for tax year 2013.1 (GEs 1-2; AEs C-D, Tr. 55-57.) Their tax 
returns were complicated because of several withdrawals from retirement accounts and her 
business expenses as a self-employed realtor. (Tr. 56.) 
 
Applicant returned to work in June 2014 for a defense contractor at a nearby military 
installation located in a state that collects taxes on non-residents that earn income in the 
state. (Tr. 32, 66-67.) Applicant assumed that federal and non-resident state taxes were 
withheld from his pay. Apparently only recently, he learned that non-resident state income 
taxes had not been withheld from his pay, and he rectified his withholding issue.2 (Tr. 59.) 
 
On March 16, 2015, Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of a 
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). In response to an inquiry concerning 
whether he had failed to file or pay and Federal, state, or other taxes by law or ordinance in 
the last seven years, Applicant indicated that he had not filed federal or state income tax 
returns for tax years 2012 and 2013. He explained that he had been hospitalized for an 
extended time and was not able to file his tax returns for those tax years. During tax year 
2013, he prematurely withdrew retirement assets. He indicated that he would file his 2012 
and 2013 tax returns at the same time, and that he expected refunds for tax year 2012, 
which he would use to pay any taxes owed for 2013. (GE 1.) Applicant relied on his spouse 
to file their income tax returns because she itemized her self-employment expenses. (Tr. 
67.) 
 
Applicant and his spouse filed their joint federal income tax return for tax year 2012 
on August 3, 2015. On adjusted gross income of $54,999, they were entitled to a $4,889 
refund. (AE C.) They filed their federal income tax return for tax year 2013 on August 17, 
2015. On adjusted gross income of $121,052, they underpaid their federal income taxes by 
$6,071 for tax year 2013. Their federal income tax refund for tax year 2012 was applied to 
their tax liability for tax year 2013. (AEs C-D.) With assessed penalties and interest, they 
owed approximately $1,618, which they paid. (GE 2; AE D.) Applicant did not present any 
documentation of his state income tax return for tax year 2012. Applicant’s spouse testified 
about 2012 and 2013 that they owed minimal state taxes for one year and were entitled to 
a refund of approximately $2,200 for the other tax year. She advised the state to apply it to 
any taxes owed for subsequent tax years. (Tr. 94-95.) 
 
In 2015, Applicant’s parents-in-law were both diagnosed with cancer. Applicant’s 
spouse put her realtor license in inactive status, and she took on caregiver responsibilities 
                                                 
1 It is unclear whether Applicant and his spouse were required to file a state income tax return for tax year 
2013. He was unemployed that entire year, and there is no evidence that his spouse earned income in a state 
that taxes employment income. There is no evidence that they were required to file a state return because of 
his premature withdrawal of retirement assets. 
 
2 Applicant did not indicate when he learned state taxes had not been withheld from his pay. His and his 
spouse’s joint income tax return for 2017 shows that no state income taxes were withheld for that tax year. 
(AE H.) What is clear is that no taxes were withheld before 2018, so his rectification of the issue is recent. 
4 
 
for her parents. Her father died in early September 2018. (Tr. 85-86, 98.) She felt 
overwhelmed by all of her obligations, and she did not file Applicant and her joint federal or 
state income tax returns when they were due for tax years 2014 through 2016. (Tr. 69.) 
Applicant took no responsibility for filing their returns. His spouse had gathered most of the 
paperwork and thought she could handle it. (Tr. 99.)  
 
On May 3, 2017, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He volunteered that he and his spouse had yet to 
file their federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2014 and 2015, but that his 
spouse was working on them. He expressed hope that she would complete their returns for 
2014 and 2015 within the next week. He also indicated that their delinquent tax returns for 
2012 and 2013 were filed late; that they owed no federal or state income taxes for tax year 
2012, or state income taxes for 2013; and that they have paid their federal tax debt of 
about $1,500 for tax year 2013. Applicant expected to owe no tax debt for tax years 2014 
and 2015. He told the OPM investigator that he and his spouse “just now have time to sit 
down and figure [their taxes] out.”  (GE 2.) 
 
In September 2017, the DOD CAF requested information from Applicant about his 
tax situation. On September 22, 2017, Applicant’s spouse indicated that she is responsible 
for their tax filing and that she was “almost finished with 2014 and have 2015 and 2016 set 
up to complete as possible.” She requested an extension of time for Applicant because of 
health issues with her parents, and she is their closest caregiver. Applicant was granted an 
extension to October 23, 2017, to respond to the DOD CAF’s request. On October 27, 
2017, Applicant’s spouse responded that they worked hard to meet the deadline but 
“circumstances beyond [their] control have made it impossible to get all the returns 
completed.” Applicant’s spouse indicated that her father was scheduled for upcoming 
surgery, and she asked for more time. She added that she would continue to work on 
completing their tax returns. (GE 5.) 
 
On December 8, 2017, the DOD CAF issued a SOR to Applicant because of his 
failure to file federal and state tax returns by the filing deadlines for tax years 2012 through 
2016. In February 2018, Applicant and his spouse retained the services of an enrolled tax 
agent to assist them in preparing their delinquent income tax returns for tax years 2014 
through 2016. (Tr. 87-88.) 
 
 With the assistance of the tax agent, Applicant and his spouse filed their federal 
income tax returns for tax years 2015 and 2016 on June 13, 2018. (AEs F-G.) Their state 
income tax returns were for tax years 2015 and 2016 were completed on June 13, 2018, 
but were not mailed until the week of September 9, 2018. (Tr. 98.) On joint adjusted gross 
income of $57,384 in 2015, they overpaid their federal income taxes by $798. Their refund 
was issued to them on July 9, 2018. (AE F.) No state taxes had been withheld from his pay 
for tax year 2015, which resulted in a tax underpayment of $1,420. With penalties for late 
payment, they owed state taxes of $1,987 for tax year 2015. (AE F.) On adjusted gross 
income of $57,159 in 2016, they overpaid their federal income taxes by $666. Their refund 
was issued to them on July 9, 2018. No state taxes were withheld from his pay for tax year 
5 
 
2016, and with penalties for failure to timely file and pay, they owed $1,747 in state taxes 
for tax year 2016. (AE G.) 
 
Through the enrolled tax agent, Applicant and his spouse requested an extension to 
October 15, 2018, to file their federal tax return for tax year 2017. On June 13, 2018, they 
timely filed their federal return for tax year 2017. On adjusted gross income of $50,931 for 
tax year 2017, they overpaid their federal income taxes by $1,695. Their refund was issued 
to them on June 27, 2018. As with previous tax years, no state income tax had been 
withheld from Applicant’s pay. As a result, they underpaid their non-resident state income 
taxes by $1,119. With a $45 underpayment penalty, they owed the state $1,197. (AE H.) 
They mailed their state income tax return for tax year 2017 sometime during the week of 
September 9, 2018. (Tr. 98.) 
 
Also on June 13, 2018, the tax agent finished Applicant and his spouse’s joint 
federal and state income tax returns for tax year 2014. Based on the returns, Applicant and 
his spouse underpaid their federal income taxes by $156 and their state income taxes by 
$135 ($201 with penalties) for tax year 2014. The tax returns could not be submitted 
electronically, so the tax agent gave them to Applicant’s spouse to mail. As of September 
10, 2018, the IRS had no record of Applicant and his spouse filing an income tax return for 
tax year 2014. (AE E.) Applicant’s spouse did not file the returns until the week of 
September 9, 2018, because she waited to see whether the IRS and state tax authority 
would take part of their refunds for previous years and apply them to their tax liabilities. 
Applicant and his spouse paid the taxes owed for tax year 2014 when she mailed the 
returns the week before his security clearance hearing. (Tr. 89-90.) Applicant and his 
spouse have not yet been billed for any delinquent state taxes, so they have not satisfied 
their state tax liabilities for 2015 through 2017, which totaled $4,931 per their returns. They 
are not sure what they owe. (Tr. 94.)  
 
Applicant’s spouse attributes her delay in addressing their tax filings to her parents’ 
and her own medical issues, including since April 2017. Her father had an operation in 
October 2017, and he died in early September 2018. (Tr. 66, 86. 90.) She assumed that 
they did not owe taxes because they “had paid the taxes as [they] went along for the most 
part and it was just the reconciliation part that [she] didn’t have time to deal with because of 
all the medical.” (Tr. 102.) Applicant has recently taken on repayment responsibility for 
some of the household expenses. (Tr. 91.) They intend to retain the services of the tax 
agent to prepare their future income tax returns. (Tr. 87, 93, 95, 99.) 
 
As of April 2018, Applicant had some outstanding medical collection debt on his 
credit record: $85 from May 2015; $1,211 (disputed) from November 2012; $66 from 
September 2015; and $321 from May 2017. They were making timely payments of $1,256 
per month on their mortgage loan obtained in May 2003. As of April 2018, the loan balance 
was $93,538. Applicant was paying $262 per month on a credit card with a current balance 
of $12,818. He had been late 30 days in August 2017 on a car lease payment of $186 per 
month, but had been current since then. (AE I.)  
 
6 
 
 Applicant received several awards from a previous employer for his dedication and 
valuable contributions in support of the military installation. (AE A.) In October 2012, he 
received a letter of appreciation from his military customer for his expertise on high-priority 
projects. (AE B.) Applicant completed voluntary training over the years to ensure that he 
continues to perform his duties in information systems security with professionalism and 
high quality. (AE A.) 
 
 Applicant has the strong endorsement of present and former co-workers, who 
consider him to be a network administrator of the highest quality. Applicant is relied on for 
his knowledge and research. He has worked on “countless tasks and projects with 
sensitive and secret information” and respected privacy and security requirements. 
Applicant is known for giving security issues priority and resolving them in a timely manner. 
(AE B.) 
  
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines 
are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, 
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative 
judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, 
favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have 
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence 
contained in the record. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence 
to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant 
is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship 
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government 
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to 
7 
 
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 
provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a 
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 
3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are articulated in AG ¶ 18: 
 
Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness 
to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or 
sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated 
by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security 
concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance 
misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially 
overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise 
questionable acts to generate funds. . . . 
 
 The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations 
security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) 
as follows: 
 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly 
compromise classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of 
his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an 
applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider 
pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other 
qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the 
vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a 
nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an 
applicant’s security eligibility. 
 
Applicant did not timely file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 
2016 and his state income tax returns for tax years 2012, and 2014 through 2016. He and 
his spouse were entitled to federal tax refunds every year except for tax year 2014, for 
which they owed $156. According to their returns submitted within the week preceding his 
security-clearance hearing, they owed state income taxes of approximately $201 for 2014, 
$1,987 for 2015, and $1,747 for 2016. They filed their returns for tax year 2017 on time, 
but they have yet to pay $1,197 in state taxes. Applicant did not have state taxes withheld 
8 
 
from his pay for tax years 2014 through 2017. Guideline F security concerns are 
established when an individual fails to comply with his tax filing obligations whether or not 
any taxes are owed. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 19(f), “failure to file or fraudulently filing 
annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or 
local income tax as required,” applies. 
 
Applicant has the burden of establishing that matters in mitigation apply. Applicant 
delegated the filing of their joint income tax returns to his spouse, but he was still 
responsible for ensuring compliance with such an important obligation as filing returns on 
time and paying any taxes owed. Regarding possible mitigation under the AGs, one or 
more of the following conditions under AG ¶ 20 may apply: 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under 
such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the 
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond 
the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, 
unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from a 
legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, 
and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under 
control; 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented 
proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions 
to resolve the issue; and  
 
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority 
to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements. 
 
 Applicant’s failure to file timely federal and state income tax returns for five 
consecutive tax years, from 2012 through 2016, is too recurrent and recent for mitigation 
under AG ¶ 20(a). Moreover, even though the delinquent tax returns have all been filed 
with the submission of his and his spouse’s joint federal tax return for tax year 2014 and 
state tax returns for 2014 through 2016 during the week of September 9, 2018, their state 
tax situation has not been fully resolved. Assuming that they paid the taxes owed for 2014 
9 
 
as Applicant’s spouse testified, they have made no payments toward $4,931 in state taxes 
owed for 2015 through 2017. 
 
Applicant has a case for partial mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). He had serious medical 
issues when his federal income tax returns for tax years 2012 and 2013, and his state 
income tax return for 2012 were due. He was well enough to resume working in June 2014, 
however, and can reasonably be expected to comply with his tax filing obligations starting 
with tax year 2014. Given his spouse’s self-employment as a realtor, Applicant is not 
faulted for delegating tax compliance to his spouse. Yet, Applicant exhibited poor judgment 
in failing to take some steps to ensure that their tax returns for tax years 2014 through 
2016 were filed, especially knowing that his spouse was becoming overwhelmed with 
caregiver duties for her parents and that his unfiled tax returns were of concern to the 
DOD. Applicant took such a hands-off approach to his taxes that he failed to note that state 
taxes were not being withheld from his pay for several years. Health issues for his spouse 
and her parents continued to take his spouse’s attention, but Applicant has not provided a 
credible explanation for his failure to take control over their tax situation. AG ¶ 20(b) 
requires that an individual act responsibly, and some concern arises in that regard because 
of Applicant’s lack of oversight over his spouse’s handling of their tax issues. 
 
AGs ¶¶ 20(c), 20(d), and 20(g) have some applicability in that their delinquent tax 
returns have now all been filed. Applicant and his spouse expressed a credible intention to 
utilize the services of their tax agent to file their tax returns in the future. Even so, it is 
difficult to fully mitigate the security concerns, given the delay in filing some of their income 
tax returns. They had to mail their state tax returns, which were completed in June 2018 by 
the tax agent. His spouse held their state income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 
2016 and their federal income tax return for 2014 until September 2018, the week before 
Applicant’s security-clearance hearing. She explained that she wanted to see whether any 
of their federal refunds would be applied toward their tax liabilities. However, available IRS 
transcripts show that their federal income tax refunds for tax years 2015 and 2016 were 
issued to them on July 9, 2018. Their federal income tax refund for tax year 2017 was 
issued to them on June 27, 2018. Available information does not indicate that there were 
refunds held by the IRS to apply toward their state income tax liabilities. AG ¶ 20(e) applies 
only in that the tax returns for tax years 2012 and 2013 were filed in August 2015, more 
than two years before the SOR was issued in December 2017, even though they were filed 
late. 
 
 Even where tax problems have been corrected and an applicant is motivated to 
prevent such problems in the future, the administrative judge is not precluded from 
considering an applicant’s trustworthiness in light of longstanding prior behavior evidencing 
irresponsibility. See e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 2015). The Appeal 
Board has long held that the failure to file tax returns suggests a problem with complying 
with well-established government rules and systems. See e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04437 
(App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016.) Moreover, the Appeal Board recently reaffirmed that the timing of 
corrective action is an appropriate factor to consider in applying AG ¶ 20(g). See e.g., ISCR 
Case No. 17-01382 at 4 (App. Bd. May 16, 2018) (citing ISCR Case No. 17-01807 at 3-4 
(App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018)). In reversing favorable clearance grants to applicants with tax 
10 
 
issues by DOHA judges in ISCR Case No. 17-01382 (App. Bd. May 16, 2018) and ISCR 
Case No. 16-01211 (App. Bd. May 30, 2018), the Appeal Board noted that applicants who 
only begin to address their delinquent tax returns after having been placed on notice that 
their clearance might be in jeopardy may not comply with laws, rules, and regulations when 
their immediate interests are not imperiled. In May 2017 and again in September 2017, 
Applicant was reminded that his tax matters were of concern for his clearance. There is no 
evidence that he and his spouse took any steps to resolve the concerns until February 
2018, when they retained the services of the tax agent. Circumstances suggest that had 
the SOR not been issued, the tax returns would still be unfiled. Concerns about Applicant’s 
financial judgment also persist because of his unexplained delay in addressing the tax 
withholding issue to ensure that state taxes are withheld from his pay. 
  
Whole-Person Concept 
 
In assessing the whole person, the administrative judge must consider the totality of 
an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d). The analysis under Guideline F is incorporated in my whole-
person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline, but 
some warrant additional comment. 
 
 The security clearance adjudication involves an evaluation of an applicant’s 
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness in light of the security guidelines in the Directive. 
See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). Applicant’s dedication to his work 
with a defense contractor is unassailable, and there is no indication that he has exercised 
poor judgment on the job. Applicant and his spouse have had to deal with several serious 
medical issues for themselves and family members that were clearly not foreseen. 
However, Applicant has also been able to work full-time for over four years now, and he 
could reasonably have taken some steps before February 2018 to ensure that his tax 
issues were being addressed in a timely fashion with or without professional assistance. 
The Appeal Board has repeatedly held that the government need not wait until an applicant 
mishandles or fails to safeguard classified information before denying or revoking security 
clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-09918 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009) (citing 
Adams v. Laird, 420 F.2d 230, 238-239 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). It is well settled that once a 
concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong 
presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 
913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Appeal Board precedent, an applicant who 
waits to address tax issues until his or her immediate interests are at stake does not show 
sound judgment and reliability. His eleventh-hour rectification of his tax filings is too recent 
to create a track record of reasonable assurances that he can be counted on to comply 
with tax filing deadlines in the future. His failure to give priority to such an important 
obligation as filing tax returns required by law causes lingering doubt about his security 
worthiness that has not been fully mitigated. 
11 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances, it not is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge