DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
     
     
          
            
                               
In the matter of: ) 
) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 18-02471 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Michelle P. Tilford, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
05/09/2019 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge: 
Based on the record in this case,1 I deny Applicant’s clearance. 
On 18 December 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial 
Considerations. 2  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without 
hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case 
closed 23 April 2019, when Department Counsel stated no objection to Applicant’s 
Response. DOHA assigned the case to me 29 April 2019. 
1Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-6, and Applicant’s Response to the FORM 
(Response). 
2DoD acted under Executive Order 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, effective 8 June 2017. 
1 
Findings of Fact 
Applicant admitted failing to timely file his 2012-2017 Federal income tax 
returns, 3 and accumulating almost $8,900 delinquent debt.4 He is a 47-year-old program 
manager employed by a U.S. defense contractor since November 2012. He has been 
continuously employed since January 2001. He served honorably in the U.S. military in 
the 1990s, during which time he held a clearance. He has not previously held an 
industrial clearance (Item 3). 
     Applicant married his first wife in June 1996, and they divorced in August 2010; 
he remarried in October 2011 and divorced in August 2012. He has three adult children 
from his first marriage.            
Applicant disclosed his failure to file his 2015 Federal income tax return on his 
May 2017 clearance application (Item 3), and discussed that return, as well as his 2012 
and 2016 returns, and SOR debt 1.l, during his September 2017 interview with a 
Government investigator (Item 6), based on his June 2017 credit report (Item 5). 5  He 
claimed to have placed SOR debt 1.l in a debt consolidation program in July 2017, and 
to be working with a tax accountant. In his November 2018 answer to DOHA 
interrogatories (Item 6), he documented entering a commercial tax resolution program in 
September 2018, covering his 2012-2017 Federal income taxes, and making the first 
program payment in October 2018. He later documented $900 monthly payments for 
April and May 2019, with payments scheduled for June-October 2019. 6  Applicant 
claimed, but did not document, having difficulty dealing with the IRS. Thus, he turned to 
the tax resolution program to resolve his taxes, which remain unfiled. 
Applicant’s March 2019 Answer (Item 2) contained an email, later confirmed by a 
more legible document from the debt resolution program (Response), reflecting that he 
enrolled seven debts totaling $13,685.37 in the program, and settled them for 
$7,086.54, an approximate discount of 48%. 7  The settled debts include a debt not 
alleged in the SOR, SOR debts 1.c-1.e, SOR debts 1.h and 1.l, and a debt purporting to 
be SOR debt 1.i. However, Applicant’s credit reports and Response show that the debt 
paid is not the debt alleged in the SOR. 
Applicant’s June 2017 credit report (Item 5), reflects that Applicant had two 
accounts with the SOR 1.i creditor, one opened in August 2015, one opened in 
3The Government withdrew SOR 1.b, regarding Applicant’s state income tax returns (FORM, p.2). 
4He denied three debts totaling about $3,000, pending verification, which he apparently obtained later. 
5The remaining SOR debts were taken from Applicant’s September 2018 credit report, which was never 
discussed with an investigator. 
6It is unclear whether any portion of these payments is sent to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 
7However, the documents do not indicate when each debt was satisfied. 
2 
November 2016. Each account is identified by its full 16-digit account number in Item 5. 
At the time, both accounts were current. Applicant’s September 2018 credit report (Item 
4) also lists both accounts. The August 2015 account is listed by the first four digits, four 
x’s, and the third four digits. The November 2016 account is listed by the first 12 digits. 
This account also shows that it was closed at consumer’s request after having been 
paid for less than full balance in November 2017. The first 12 digits under which the 
account is listed in Item 4 match the first 12 digits under which the account is listed in 
Item 5. The last four digits listed for this creditor in Applicant’s Response match the last 
four digits in Item 5. Consequently, the debt Applicant paid on this creditor is not the 
debt alleged at SOR 1.i, which remains unaddressed. 
In addition, although Applicant’s June 2017 credit report (Item 5) lists only one 
delinquent SOR debt (SOR 1.l),8  it lists several debts which later became SOR debts, 
some with full account numbers, that were current at the time, but which were 
delinquent on the September 2018 credit report (Item 4), whether still held by the 
original creditor or by a collection agent. First, SOR debt 1.c was current in June 2016, 
listed under the original creditor, with a complete account number, but was delinquent in 
September 2018 under the collection agent. 9  The last four digits listed for the original 
creditor in Applicant’s response matches the last four digits of the original creditor in 
Item 5. Second, SOR 1.e appears under the original creditor, with full account number, 
as current in Item 5, but then tracks to Item 4 with the first 12 digits as delinquent but 
transferred; it then appears under the SOR 1.e collection agent, with the first eight 
digits. Again, the last four digits listed for the original creditor in Applicant’s Response 
matches the last four digits of the original creditor in Item 5. Third, SOR debt 1.h, with 
full account number, was current on Item 5, but was delinquent under the same creditor 
with a 12-digit account number, and settled under the last four digits in Applicant’s 
Response. Finally, SOR debt 1.k  was current, with full account number, on Item 5, but 
was delinquent on Item 4 under the first four digits. Applicant claimed that he paid this 
creditor directly, but too recently for it to be reflected on a credit report (Response). He 
provided no confirmation of his claim to have paid SOR debt 1.g online. 
Applicant’s Response contains an April 2019 email from the collection agent for 
SOR debt 1.f, acknowledging Applicant’s acceptance of the collection agent’s 
settlement offer, but not containing any actual indication that the settlement amount was 
paid. Similarly, Applicant provided an April 2019 letter from the collection agent for SOR 
debt 1.j asserting the SOR amount alleged; Applicant annotated the letter that the debt 
was paid the same day, but did not otherwise document payment. 
8SOR debt 1.l alleged an original creditor with an eight digit account number, being held by a collection agent. 
Applicant’s Response lists only the original creditor, under a last four digits that does not match Item 5. Only 
the original creditor and original debt alleged connects the settlement payment to Item 5. 
9Applicant gets some credit for connecting the creditor in Item 5 with the creditor in Item 4, given no obvious 
connection in the credit reports. 
3 
Applicant attributes his financial problems to his divorce, but the record evidence 
does not support that claim. He provided no evidence showing that his August 2012 
divorce caused him to not file his 2012-2017 Federal income tax returnsnone of which 
had been filed over six years after the divorce. He failed to show that the ten delinquent 
debts—all of which were listed as being opened 2015-2018—were caused by the 2012 
divorce.10 He specifically stated that SOR debt 1.l was caused by his children going over 
their minutes’ limits on their cell phones. 
Applicant documented no credit or financial counseling, and did not submit a 
budget. He provided no work or character references, or evidence of community 
involvement. He submitted no current credit reports which might have corroborated his 
claimed payments. 
Policies 
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability 
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and 
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. 
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the 
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, 
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case 
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to 
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, 
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations). 
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government 
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, 
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. 
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden 
of persuasion. 
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship 
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a 
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, 
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. 
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any 
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the 
Government.11 
10Two of the debts held by collection agents are listed as opened in 2018, presumably when they received the 
accounts from the original creditors. The accounts with the original creditors were opened in 2015 or 2016. 
11See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 
4 
Analysis 
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. Applicant failed to timely file his 
Federal income tax returns between 2012 and 2017. He has stated no credible reason 
for his failure, and did not corroborate any claimed contacts with the IRS. Applicant 
engaged professional tax help in September 2018, but theses efforts have yet to result 
in filed income tax returns or documented payments to the IRS. Regarding the ten 
delinquent debts, Applicant claimed to have engaged a debt resolution program to 
resolve seven SOR debts in July 2017, but provided no documentation of when he 
engaged the program. The program settled six of the SOR debts, with no indication 
when the debts were settled or paid. Applicant claimed, without documentation to show 
actual payments, to have personally paid four SOR debts. Even accepting Applicant’s 
proffers as true, the claimed payments were made after he received the FORM. SOR 
debt 1.i remains unpaid.12  
The Appeal Board has long held that failure to timely file required tax returns may 
demonstrate a lack of judgment inconsistent with access to classified information. 
A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal 
obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of good 
judgment and reliability required of persons granted access 
to classified information. Indeed, the Board has previously 
noted that a person who has a history of not fulfilling their 
legal obligation to file income tax returns may be said not to 
have demonstrated the high degree of judgment and 
reliability required for access to classified information.”13 
This is true whether the failure to file is willful14  or attributed to the press of other 
circumstances.15  As recently as December 2015, the Appeal Board upheld a denial of 
clearance, in a case notably similar to this, of an applicant who had failed to file Federal 
or state income tax returns for 10 years. 
The filing of tax returns is both a financial and a legal 
obligation. Applicant’s . . . failure to have done so for many 
years is sufficient to raise a concern that he may be unwilling 
12¶19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;(c) a 
history of not meeting financial obligations; (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing  annual Federal, state, or local 
income tax returns of failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required; 
13ISCR Case No. 12-05053 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2014), reversing Administrative Judge’s favorable decision. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 98-0608 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2000)(failure to file for five years). 
14See, ISCR Case No. 98-0801 (App. Bd. Jun. 8, 2000)(tax protester). 
15See, ISCR Case No. 98-0761 (App. Bd. Dec. 27, 1999)(routine failure to file). 
5 
 
to follow other rules and regulations, such as those that 
govern the handling of classified information. See, e.g., 
ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (A 
person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal 
obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of good 
judgment and reliability required of those granted access to 
classified information). See also Cafeteria & Restaurant 
Workers Union Local 473 v. McElroy, 284 F.2d 173, 183 
(D.C. Cir. 1960), aff’d, 367 U.S. 886 (1961). Indeed, as the 
Judge noted, Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(g) explicitly 
provides that failure to file tax returns is a circumstance that 
can raise a security concern. Moreover, the Directive 
presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct 
under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a 
clearance. See. e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04648 at 3 (App. 
Bd. Sep. 9, 2015). ISCR Case No. 14-02930 at 3 (App. Bd. 
Dec. 9, 2015). 
Security concerns under Guideline F are not limited to cases in which an 
Applicant is financially insolvent or is experiencing difficulty in paying debts. In this case 
his failure to timely file his Federal returns for at least eight years has created significant 
tax debt that he has not addressed. 
 Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. His 
failures to timely file his Federal returns are multiple, recent, and the circumstances are 
not demonstrated to be unlikely to recur.16  Moreover, he has not demonstrated that his 
failures to timely file and his subsequent failures to timely pay or make pay 
arrangements were due to circumstances beyond his control, and it is clear that he has 
not been responsible in addressing his taxes. 17  Similarly, his delinquent debts all 
occurred several years after his most recent divorce, and all involved accounts opened 
several years after his divorce. He did not show how his divorce could have influenced 
these accounts, and while he has documented five settled SOR accounts, his 
documents do not show when the debts were paid, precluding a judgment on the 
reasonableness of his actions. His four SOR debts purportedly paid after he received 
the FORM, were not responsibly dealt with on their faces, as was the omitted debt. 
Applicant has not had any credit or financial counseling, although five of the 
debts were settled, however untimely.18  The absence of payment on one account, late 
16¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that 
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
17¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and 
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
18¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that 
the problem is being resolved or is under control; 
6 
      
payment on four other accounts, and the absence of dates on the six settled accounts 
means Applicant cannot demonstrate that he has made a good-faith effort to resolve his 
debts. The missing details of his tax resolution program requires the same conclusion 
regarding his taxes. 19  Moreover, he submitted no work or character evidence which 
might support a whole-person assessment to overcome the security concerns raised by 
his conduct. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
 Formal Findings 
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant 
Subparagraph b: Withdrawn 
Subparagraphs c-l : Against Applicant 
Conclusion 
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for 
Applicant. Clearance denied. 
 
                                        
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR 
Administrative Judge 
19¶20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
7