WPC1 E n ȻK񵃏Fv?#\5 rs?\ @֩J>&"C`[ʢSTf2Ctyf#ϋUuԟjaߖQ<!4(KsbHƏ XiR+ w9!BO;)WF.bSmabUN]"sYeIu+c} |);̖0|lNJƄ++ WmP!sxLeː( gUXIvFJȆzڷ̨4X'% 2ww*ΕY5uuָm@UrW{69G_7 RXӳ~:?ɋT(8AIѩ4.,@^;wfИ1S:6Kh~5}UA1 `w<@[<*)x =} 5W#UN % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN Ze Z N E 0 0D  E  BHP LaserJet 400 color M451dn UPD PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ZJ7J3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0    x$USUS.,      1    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure220(a)states: thebehaviorhappenedsolongago,wassoinfrequent,oroccurred  undersuchcircumstancesthatitisunlikelytorecuranddoesnotcastdoubtontheindividualscurrentreliability, t trustworthiness,andgoodjudgment[.] ; x$USUS.,      3    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure220(d)states: theindividualinitiatedgoodfaithefforttorepayoverduecreditorsor  otherwiseresolvedebts[.]  x$USUS.,      2    _XXԀDirective,Enclosure220(b)states: theconditionsthatresultedinthefinancialproblemwerelargelybeyond  thepersonscontrol(e.g.,lossofemployment,abusinessdownturn,unexpectedmedicalemergency,oradeath,divorce t orseparation),andtheindividualactedresponsiblyunderthecircumstances[.] d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:ApplicantarguesthattheGovernmentfailedtoprovehemadefinancialdecisionsthat  raisedsecurityconcerns.Thisargumentlacksmerit.TheJudgesmaterialfindingsabout t Applicantsdelinquentmedicaldebtandhisstatetaxfilingdelinquenciesfor20112013were ` basedonsubstantialevidenceorconstitutedreasonableinferencesthatcouldbedrawnfromthe L  evidence.Adversedecisionaffirmed. 8  CASENO:1503160.a1  ` DATE:05/10/2017  8     `     h      p DATE:May10,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdE[gA \ InRe: W      k ApplicantforSecurityClearance C AV) xdEgA  ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  !   "   _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1503160  p%   \& .؉7r. &    APPEALBOARDDECISION ' APPEARANCES X )  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"+ JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #X,  FORAPPLICANT  $ .  Prose #X@X%&쳔# % /     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On >(#2 March24,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat *)z$3 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof *f%4 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. +R&5 OnFebruary16,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppealsAdministrative +>'6 JudgeRichardA._Cefola_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealed ,*(7 pursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. -)8 Ї  Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeerredinhisapplication  ofthedisqualifyingandmitigatingconditionsandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowingdiscussion,weaffirmthe  Judgesdecision. t _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  8    Applicantisa47yearoldemployeeofaGovernmentcontractor.InhisresponsetotheSOR,  ` ApplicantneitheradmittednordeniedtheallegationsandtheJudgeconsideredhisresponsestobe  L  denials.Theallegedstatetaxliensandanotherdebtwerelistedoncreditreportsofferedinto  8  evidence.Applicantsatisfiedthestatetaxliensthroughawagegarnishment. $    TheSORallegedthatApplicantfailedtofilehisstateincometaxreturnsfor20092013.He   wasnotrequiredtofileaincometaxreturninthespecifiedstatefor2009andfiledfor2010.Hehas   yettosatisfyapastduemedicaldebtforabout$355orfilestateincometaxreturnsfor2011,2012,   and2013. p   TheJudgesAnalysis  H   From20112013,Applicantfailedtofilestateincometaxreturnsandaccumulateda  p significantamountofdelinquenttaxdebt.TheevidencewassufficienttoestablishDisqualifying  \ Conditions19(a) inabilityorunwillingnesstosatisfydebts;19(c) historyofnotmeetingfinancial H obligations;and19(g) failuretofileannualFederal,state,orlocalincometaxreturnsasrequired 4 orthefraudulentfilingofthesame[.]MitigatingConditions20(a) #  1      ׀and20(b) #  2      ׀arenotapplicable   becauseApplicantcontinuestobedelinquentonhisstatetaxfilingsandhasfailedtoaddressa   medicaldebt.TheJudgefoundinfavorofApplicantontheallegedstatetaxliens.  Ѐ      Discussion     MuchofApplicantsAppealBriefaddressesmattersthatarenotcontainedintherecordof X  theproceeding.Specifically,hecontends atthetimeoftheAdministrativeJudgesdecisionthe D! ...evidenceintherecordwasincomplete(AppealBriefat3)andproceedstomakearguments 0"  basedonpurportedeventsforwhichnoevidencewaspresentedtotheJudgeforconsideration. #l! ThosepurportedeventsandtheargumentsbasedonthemconstitutenewevidencethattheAppeal $X" Boardcannotconsider.See,DirectiveE3.1.29. $D #   ApplicantarguesthattheGovernmentfailedtoprovehemadefinancialdecisionsthatraised &"% securityconcerns.Thisargumentlacksmerit.AstheJudgefound,creditreportsadmittedinto  evidenceestablishedthedelinquentmedicaldebt.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1100046at2(App.Bd.  Feb.10,2012)forthepropositionthatitiswellsettledthatadverseinformationfromacreditreport  cannormallymeetthesubstantialevidencestandardandtheGovernmentsburdenofproduction t underDirectiveE3.1.14.Inhissecurityclearanceapplication,Applicantdisclosedthathedidnot ` filehis2011and2012stateincometaxreturnsasrequired.GovernmentExhibit(GE)1.His L  backgroundinterviewestablishedhisstatetaxfilingdelinquencyfor2013.GE2.Inhispost 8  hearingsubmission,hestatedthathe failedtofollowuponanextensiontofile[his]individualstate $ t taxreturnsfor2011through2013"andthathisaccountant ispreparedtoprovidethem... in  ` ordertoconcludemyobligationsinthismatter.ApplicantExhibitK.TheJudgesmaterial  L  findingsaboutApplicantsdelinquentmedicaldebtandhisstatetaxfilingdelinquenciesfor2011  8  2013werebasedonsubstantialevidenceorconstitutedreasonableinferencesthatcouldbedrawn $  fromtheevidence.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1203420at3(App.Bd.Jul.25,2014).Moreover,the   DirectivepresumesthereisannexusbetweenprovenfactsunderanyoftheGuidelinesandan   applicantseligibilityforasecurityclearance.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1502903at2(App.Bd.   Mar.9,2017).WefindnoerrorintheJudgesconclusionthatDisqualifyingConditions19(a),   19(c),and19(g)applyinthiscase. p   ApplicantalsoarguesforapplicationofMitigatingCondition20(d) #  3      ׀and,indoingso,cites H tohisresolutionofthepastduestatetaxes.WenotethattheJudgefoundinfavorofApplicanton 4 theallegedstatetaxliensbecausetheywerepaidthroughawagegarnishment.Wefindnoerrorin  p theJudgenotaddressingMitigatingCondition20(d)duringhisanalysisofApplicantsmedicaldebt  \ orstatetaxfilingdelinquencies. H     ApplicantassertstheJudgeerredinexcludingfromevidenceastatedocumentpertainingto   hisamendmentofhis2014stateincometaxreturn.Afterthehearing,theJudgelefttherecordopen   untilSeptember12,2016,forApplicanttosubmitadditionalmatters.Duringthatperiod,Applicant  submittedtwodocumentsthatwereadmittedintoevidence.OnJanuary2,2017,almostfourmonths  aftertherecordclosed,Applicantsubmittedthedocumentinquestion.DepartmentCounselobjected  tothedocument,andtheJudgedidnotadmititintoevidence.WereviewaJudgesevidentiary l rulingstoseeiftheyarearbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1202296 X  at3(App.Bd.Mar.12,2014).WefindnoerrorintheJudgeexcludingfromevidencethedocument D! inquestion.WealsonotenoSORallegationpertainstoeitherApplicantsfilingofastateincome 0"  taxreturnfor2014orhispaymentofstatetaxesforthatyear. #l!   ThebalanceofApplicantsargumentsamounttoclaimsthattheJudgedidnotconsiderall $D # theevidenceormisweighedtheevidence.Thesearguments,however,areneitherenoughtorebut %0!$ thepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftherecordevidencenorsufficienttoshowthatthe &"% Judgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g., '#& ISCRCaseNo.1504856at23(App.Bd.Mar.9,2017).Additionally,wefindnobasisfor (#' concludingtheJudgeerredinhiswholepersonanalysis. )$(  |*%)   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantdataandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision.Apersonwhofailsrepeatedlytofulfillhisorherlegalobligations,suchasfilingtax  returnswhendue,doesnotdemonstratethehighdegreeofgoodjudgmentandreliabilityrequired  ofthosegrantedaccesstoclassifiedinformation.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1508782at3(App.Bd. t Apr.5,2017).Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearance ` maybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity. L  DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): 8   Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillbe $ t resolvedinfavorofnationalsecurity.  ` @( Order   8     `   TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   Signed:MichaelRaanan t    `     h   MichaelRaanan `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody 8    `     h   JamesE.Moody $    `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard  @*   `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy \     `     h   JamesF.Duffy H!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 4"     `     h   Member,AppealBoard  #p!