WPCh @nLٚ$qPg.M*~dRrhF8eP"}x,rQMd *Mˋ3icgpXˠPXJ[2ij2?NmV2B4ܘ9ꥤy7k2Įum>D]<^Ta%aIV`9} >[~s$3Ж1yTOr@Kg#t,d㜖k t̰UAp'뼸xo~G}Ffj bѯz&o%/ ]?xz=ꛣj"z:onVO?M๴tvsrqzR h㵯#){Ӫ G渲AI\풗"B s\ɀF 27=W.Jlv8~t瑱`27|ŚhCOZ#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z NC C 0E E  0D BKHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԚsJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2$ !USUS.,  HXX      0    $USUS.,HXX      1    _ AJudgeisanimpartialfactfinder.Assuch,aJudgehasnoauthoritytoadviseanapplicantonthequantum  ofevidencesufficienttomitigatetheconcernsraisedinan_SOR_.NeitherisaDepartmentCounselauthorizedtoadvise t anapplicantonhowtopresenthisorhercaseorotherwisetoactasanadvocateforanopposingparty.Forthemtodo 8 otherwisewouldbeinconsistentwiththeirrespectivedutiestomakefindingsandconclusionsortorepresenttheinterest L oftheU.S.Internalcitationsomitted.(#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:InaDOHAproceeding,itistheapplicantsjobtopresentevidenceinmitigationofthe  concernsraisedbyan_SOR_.Althoughproseapplicantsarenotheldtothestandardsofattorneys, t theyareexpectedtotakereasonablestepstoprotecttheirinterests.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1504003.a1 8  DATE:05/25/2017  ` _________________________   `     h      p DATE:May25,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1504003 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0, _Turkessa_ԀB.Rollins,Esq.#XX%&# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On h&!0 December2,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat T'"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof @(#2 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision ,)|$3 onthewrittenrecord.OnMarch24,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings *h%4 andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeEricH._Borgstrom_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestfora +T&5 securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +@'6   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethershewasdeniedanopportunityto -)8 presentevidenceandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontraryto  law.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.  _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  t   Applicantservedinthemilitaryfrom1990until2011,receivinganhonorabledischargeat L  theconclusionofherservice.Sheholdsabachelorsdegree.In1999,Applicantwasdischargedin 8  Chapter13bankruptcy.Beginningin2001,Applicantstartedabusiness,whichfailedin2011,and $ t abusinessoperatedbyherhusbandfailedin2010.Duetothesefailures,Applicantexperienced  ` financialdifficulty,resultinginasecondChapter13bankruptcypetitionthatshefiledin2011.  L  Applicantspetitionlistedover$500,000inliabilities,whichincludedstateincometaxdebtsfor  8  2002and2003inthecombinedamountofabout$2,400.Thedischargeordernotedthatsomedebts, $  suchastaxes,maynotbedischarged,andApplicantprovidednodocumentationtoshowthathertax   debtswereresolvedthroughthebankruptcy.     Applicantdeniedthatsheowedstatetaxesfortheyearsinquestion,claimingthatshelived   inanotherstateatthetime.However,inhersecurityclearanceapplication(SCA)shedisclosedthat, p from2001through2005,shewasinfactresidinginthestateclaimingthetaxobligation.Moreover, \ Applicantlistedthedelinquenttaxesonherbankruptcypetition.Sheprovidednoevidenceto H substantiateherclaimthatshedidnotowethetaxesallegedintheSOR. 4   TheJudgesAnalysis   \    `     h   TheJudgeresolvedtwoallegationsregardingApplicantsbankruptcypetitionsinherfavor. 4 However,hestatedthatshehadnotprovidedevidencethathertaxdebtswereresolved. More   importantly,shedidnotprovideanyevidencetoshowthatthecircumstancesleadingtoherrecent   bankruptcyareunlikelytorecurortoshowfinancialresponsibility.Decisionat5.Hestatedthat  shehadprovidednocorroboratingevidenceinsupportofhercontentionthatshedidnotinfactowe  thestatetaxesallegedintheSOR.HestatedthatApplicantfailedtodemonstratethatsheis  financiallyresponsible. l   Discussion  D!   ApplicantsappealandDepartmentCounselsreplybriefincludemattersfromoutsidethe #l! record,whichwegenerallycannotconsider.DirectiveE3.1.29.However,wewillconsidernew $X" evidenceinsofarasitbearsuponthresholdissuessuchasdueprocessorjurisdiction.See,e.g.,ISCR $D # CaseNo.1400812at2(App.Bd.Jul.8,2015).Applicantarguesthat,asalayperson,shedidnot %0!$ fullyunderstandthesortofdocumentaryevidencethatwouldhavemitigatedtheconcernsinher &"% case.ShearguesthatDepartmentCounsel, [f]orsomeunknownreason,didnotsupplementthe '#& recordwithupdatedbankruptcydocuments.AppealBriefat34. (#'   ApplicantdidnotrespondtotheFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM),whichwastransmitted |*%) toherinMarch2016.Decisionat2.InFebruary2017,theJudgereopenedtherecordtoenablethe h+&* partiestoprovidesupplementaryevidence,inlightofthetimethathadtranspiredsinceApplicants T,'+ receiptoftheFORM.Applicantsubmitteddocumentsrelevanttohercircumstances.However,as @-(, statedabove,theJudgeconcludedthatApplicanthadnotmitigatedtheconcernsarisingfromhertax  delinquencies.    TherecordshowsthatApplicantreceivednoticeofherrighttoprovideadocumentary t responsetotheFORM.ShereceivednoticeintheFORMitself,inthecoverletteraccompanying ` it,andintheDirective,acopyofwhichwasincludedwiththeFORM.Thereisnoreasontobelieve L  thatApplicantwasdeniedadequatenoticeofherrighttosubmitevidence.Indeed,despitethis 8  notice,shemadenoresponseuntilpromptedbytheJudgeinFebruary2017.NeitherDepartment $ t CounselnortheJudgewereobligatedtoobtainandpresentmitigatingevidenceonApplicants  ` behalf.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1202329at3(App.Bd.Aug.17,2015); #  1      ׀ISCRCaseNo.1403062  L  at3(App.Bd.Sep.11,2015).  8    InaDOHAproceeding,itistheapplicantsjobtopresentevidenceinmitigationofthe   concernsraisedbyanSOR.DirectiveE3.1.15.Althoughproseapplicantsarenotheldtothe   standardsofattorneys,theyareexpectedtotakereasonablestepstoprotecttheirinterests.See,e.g.,   ISCRCaseNo.1202371at3(App.Bd.Jun.30,2014).Inthatregard,DOHAprovidedApplicant   withguidanceconcerning,amongotherthings,herrighttoemploycounselortoobtainother p representationinpresentinghercase.DOHACoverLetter,datedFebruary25,2016.Applicantwas \ notdeniedthedueprocessaffordedbytheDirective. H   ApplicantarguesthattheJudgedidnotproperlyweightheevidence.Shecitestoevidence  p thathertaxeswereincludedinhermorerecentbankruptcydischarge.However,theJudges  \ conclusionthatApplicanthadnotprovidedenoughevidencetoresolvetheissuessurroundingher H delinquenttaxeswasconsistentwiththeevidencethatwasbeforehim.Inanyevent,theJudges 4 adversedecisionreliednotonlyonthetaxdelinquencies,butalsoonapaucityofevidencetoshow   thatApplicantsfinancialproblemsareunlikelytorecur.Applicantsargumentconsists,ineffect,   ofanalternativeinterpretationoftherecord,whichisnotenoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighed  theevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.  1508842at3(App.Bd.Feb.14,2017).    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe X  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay D! begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department 0"  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt #l! concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor $X" ofthenationalsecurity.  $D # @( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . `    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields  d    `     h   WilliamS.Fields  P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge  <     `     h   MemberAppealBoard (     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,AppealBoard L    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy L    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $    `     h   Member,AppealBoard