KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge stated that Applicant’s tax problem precedes his wife’s job loss and the
deaths of his relatives.  He found that Applicant still owes over $116,000 and that there is
insufficient evidence that his problems are behind him or that he has acted responsibly in regard
to his tax lien.  He found that Applicant’s tax problem is recent and ongoing. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00221.a1
DATE: 03/20/2019
DATE: March 20, 2019
In Re:
------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00221
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
February 8, 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 hearing. 
On December 11, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant has worked for his current employer since 2005 and has worked for Defense
contractors for about 30 years.  He served on active duty with the U.S. military from 1983 until
1987.  Applicant has held a clearance for many years.  He has a history of financial problems, which
include a tax lien as well as other delinquent debts.  The Judge found that Applicant had mitigated
all but the tax lien, which is alleged in the amount of about $29,000.  Applicant attributed his
financial problems to his wife having lost her job, to deaths of close family members, and to his
having allowed his finances to get “out of hand.”  Decision at 2.  Applicant made a payment toward
his tax lien in 2018, and tax refunds were applied to this debt.  These are the only payments that
Applicant has made.  Applicant’s wife is working again.  She has filed a lawsuit and hopes to use
the settlement to pay the family’s debts.  Applicant has not received financial counseling, although
he has hired tax professionals to help him address his problems.
The Judge stated that Applicant’s tax problem precedes his wife’s job loss and the deaths of
his relatives.  He found that Applicant still owes over $116,000 and that there is insufficient
evidence that his problems are behind him or that he has acted responsibly in regard to his tax lien. 
He found that Applicant’s tax problem is recent and ongoing.  Decision at 2 and 6.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  He cites to evidence of his wife’s job loss, his mother’s death, and his wife’s
current employment.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of
the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan.
15, 2019).  Applicant presented a subsequent appeal submission.  The Directive permits only one
appeal brief by a party.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03393 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 6, 2018).
2
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.1  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: Charles C. Hale                   
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1The Judge made a Formal Finding against Applicant under subparagraph 1.a. and a second Formal Finding
in Applicant’s favor for the same sub-paragraph.  Reading the Decision as a whole, it is clear that the second finding is
an administrative error.  See, e.g., 07-02253 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2008).
3