WPC  3@\ƋR;=}^6紡a6wQF|5y2lfcyM{$6o#L:af.ex}dF: U0αK6/EYg5OteC8<%;Z[\e7ո̲I%*1j|F B̰=c Z%6g>:P/V巼 QAM]l@x*nv7+ˬl[q8O6I⋻F!$~RS3@dRn%hg>l8g0݄Ϛ '8 eD.W'<0Rq.OBtD!?y.Wp*:eh(ٿx?2N=>I\uFHS)Çt@-&L͓b8*0c >YW#UN % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN 0e b E  Z* 0D N B HP LaserJet P3010 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,|-J5 f-IntFold3|xU(Y(2$ !USUS.,   TXX      0      $USUS., TXX      1    _ԀWenotethatApplicantadmittedinhisresponsetothe_SOR_Ԁthathedidnotfilehistaxreturnsforthelisted  years,whichsupportedtheJudgesdeterminationthatdisqualifyingcondition19(g)(i.e.,failuretofileannualFederal, t state,orlocaltaxreturnsasrequired...)wasestablished.8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:AnappealingpartymuststatewithsufficientspecificitywhatitisaboutaJudges  decisionthatheorshebelievestobeerroneoussoastoenablereviewingauthorities,suchasthe t AppealBoard,toaddresstheassignmentoferrorWeareunabletodeterminewhichfindings ` Applicantiscontesting.Adversedecisionaffirmed L  _CASENO_:1501283.a1 $ t DATE:01/13/2017  L  __ 8 Tdd8       `     h      p DATE:January13,2017 4 .؉7r(#(#.AV ) xdEgA 4 InRe: /     ApplicantforSecurityClearance { AV ) xdER!gA S!  ) 4  )  ! )  " ) # ) $ ) % ) l& ) X '  D!( pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501283 +  , .؉7r. \XXp #l,    APPEALBOARDDECISION $X- APPEARANCES &"0  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  (#2 JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel |)$3  FORAPPLICANT  ,+|&5   GregoryF._Greiner_,Esq.  #XX%&# ,T'6  -)8     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On  February25,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat  decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof  DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. t OnOctober21,2016,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) ` AdministrativeJudgeMarkHarveydeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicant L  appealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. 8    Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary,  ` capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.  L    TheJudgesFindingsofFact      Applicant,whois39yearsold,hasworkedforhisemployersince2001.Headmittedthat   hefailedtofilehisFederalandstateincometaxreturnsfor2008through2011.Heattributedthe   delayinfilinghistaxreturnstohiscomputerharddrivecrashingin2008andtobecomingdistracted t byworkandothercommitments.Healsoindicatedthatheneededinformationfromhis2008and ` 2009taxreturnstofilethesubsequentyearstaxreturn.Additionally,hebelievedthathecouldnot L filetaxreturnsforsubsequentyearsunlesshehadfiledforthepreviousyearand,ifhewasowed 8 refunds,theIRSwouldnotbeconcernedabouthisfailuretofilehistaxreturns. $t   In2012,Applicantdisclosedinhissecurityclearanceapplication(_SCA_)andduringhis L personalsubjectinterview(PSI)thathehadnotfiledhistaxreturnsfor20082011.Hestatedthat 8 hewasgoingtoseekassistancefromanaccountantandplannedtofilehistaxreturnsinDecember $ 2012.AfterthePSI,hebelievedhissecurityclearancehearingwouldoccurshortlyandthatit   wouldlookshadyorthathewas tryingtocoverup[his]trackifhefiledhistaxreturns.  Decisionat2.    ApplicantsignedhisFederalandstateincometaxreturnsfor20082010onthedateofhis p securityclearancehearinginSeptember2016andwasentitledtorefundsforeachofthosetax \  returns.HefiledhisFederaltaxreturnsfor20112014inApril2015andwasentitledtorefundsfor H! eachofthosetaxreturns.Hefiledhis2015Federalincometaxreturnontime. 4"    Applicantdoesnothaveanydelinquentdebtsornegativeentriesonhiscreditreport.Besides  $\" histaxreturnfilingissues,hehasnootherfinancialconcerns. $H #   TheJudgesAnalysis  & "%     TheJudgeconcluded: (#' 8  [Applicants]explanationsfornotfilinghistaxreturnsjustifyatmostabriefdelay *%) forfilinghisincometaxreturns.Myassessmentisthathisfailuretotimelyfilehis l+&* federalandstatetaxreturnsfortaxyears2008through2011isbasedmostlyon X,'+ procrastination,hisbeliefthathewouldnotsufferanypenaltysolongashewasdue  arefund,andhisfailuretogivefilinghistaxreturnsahighpriority.Hisexplanations  donotfullymitigatefinancialconsiderationssecurityconcerns.       Discussion  `     ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgesfindingsarenotsupportedbysuchrelevantevidencethat 8  areasonablepersonmightaccepttheconclusionsinlightofthefullrecord.Appeal_Brief_Ԁat5. $ t However,hedidnotspecifywhatparticularfindingswereunsupported._ #  1      _ԀAnappealingpartymust  ` statewithsufficientspecificitywhatitisaboutaJudgesdecisionthatheorshebelievestobe  L  erroneoussoastoenablereviewingauthorities,suchastheAppealBoard,toaddresstheassignment  8  oferror.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1405920at3(App.Bd.Jan.8,2016).Weareunableto $  determinewhichfindingsApplicantiscontesting.     ApplicantarguesthattheJudgefailedtoconsiderpertinentmitigatingevidence.Specifically,   heclaimstheJudgedidnotgivehimfullcreditforhistestimonyandotherevidenceregardinghis   willingnesstofileallnecessarytaxreturns.Thisargument,however,failstorebutthepresumption p thattheJudgeconsideredalloftherecordevidence.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1205959at2(App. \ Bd.Apr.6,2016).ApplicantalsoarguesthathesuccessfullymitigatedtheGuidelineFsecurity H concernsbecausethelatetaxfilingoccurredundercircumstancesthatshouldnotcastdoubtonhis 4 reliability,thathemadegoodfaithandsubstantialeffortstoresolveallofhisoutstandingtaxfiling  p problems;andthatthoseproblemsareundercontrol.Inessence,Applicantischallengingthe  \ amountofweighttheJudgegavecertainevidence.Itiswellestablishedthatapartysdisagreement H withtheJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferentinterpretationofthe 4 evidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceorreachedconclusionsin   amannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1406634at2   (App.Bd.Apr.28,2016).    ContrarytoApplicantscontention,theJudgeswholepersonanalysissupportsaunfavorable  securityclearancedetermination.Inconductinghiswholepersonanalysis,theJudgecompliedwith l therequirementsofDirective6.3,byconsideringthetotalityoftheevidenceinreachinghis X  decision.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1402806at4(App.Bd.Sep.9,2015).TheJudgecorrectlycited D! anAppealBoarddecisionforthepropositionsthatfailuretocomplywithFederaland/orstatetax 0"  lawssuggeststhatanapplicanthasaproblemwithabidingbywellestablishedGovernmentrules #l! andregulationsandthatvoluntarycompliancewithrulesandregulationsisessentialforprotecting $X" classifiedinformation.Decisionat8,citing_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501031at4(App.Bd.Jun.15,2016). $D # Apersonwhofailsrepeatedlytofulfillhisorherlegalobligationsdoesnotdemonstratethehigh %0!$ degreeofgoodjudgmentandreliabilityrequiredofthosegrantedaccesstoclassifiedinformation. &"% See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1401894at5(App.Bd.Aug.18,2015).EvidencethatApplicantfailed '#& tofilehisFederalandstateincometaxreturnsinatimelymannerforfouryearssupportstheJudges  ultimateconclusion.  Ѐ    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe t decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay ` begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department L  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt 8  concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor $ t ofthenationalsecurity.  ` @( Order   8    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ t    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ `    `     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,Appeal_Board___