ÿWPC  4C(lÑS’ƒR&ÔÕ ™£Y¦•ÇÀ•¾‚rèKJðí÷éS¶UìC[¹J¢±eˆ#+#ÖÑ”·—5Šâ2ž¾?Ê_Ì3†²ê—í_3çYvng‰– zƒ¿Äk&4‹d°88ÊB˜©Yªù±3ñÞÏ|Õ£|ÅÅpŠ_ò¬­‚äN¶ÛéBÁ©'IKBýÔ—Î+LܲŒˆ›³ã±¿7¼ª²hy·ñ1„J‰ Yäi¤Å®Kdê½w<ö™Uú¯g>Ó«éƒÝt¦£51|ú%e’‚‹¤O B¸ÍG.Ò;ˆGÆí¯ôB³’¡ûT+~´êÉÛ4lI5^Tv¾®– LËOh¼ÅCk‹Šˆ‹BU'Ó©i%è þ|·Xwõ½+ñ¼ÕÉË(\«ÏeS;‰R$º^_ÃYr=_Ù{Ü"UÊ;®<ð’HBóL}²‚Pûö7GçÚ”I¼ž÷~bžîä8­ìGO é^V_ãISCRÅA?š4äÚ+ý© MÓéŒ&ª÷™æb©`ºùm¼uš{ŸÏO,ÎTìsvÙ–ü‚ÂÞ ÖÛ ïªÍ.öKô¢fÈ¥ Šh ÿç¬ :¨Áxâ¨3¿þr„hCv Jeö¡ì{½ŠçyŨ 7ðZ"z0W#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß àZ ^ s w 4ƒ — ¦ m¨ N¿ ¿ àZÁ 0Š 0D¥ Eé é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é Bë ˜Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 SeriesÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE6iK;=•J3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x«$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€Guideline€FÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€Department€Counsel€advised€the€Judge€that€he€had€explained€to€Applicant€that€he€hadÐ ˆØ Ðan€ð ðabsolute€rightðð€to€receive€15€days€notice€of€the€hearing,€and€Applicant€agreed€to€waive€thatÐ tÄ Ðright.€Upon€questioning€from€the€Judge,€Applicant€agreed€that€he€waived€that€right€andÐ `° Ðacknowledged€that€he€had€sufficient€time€to€prepare€for€the€hearing.€Due€to€Applicantððs€waiver€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€15„day€notice,€the€Judge€also€left€the€record€open€for€a€month.€Applicant€was€adequatelyÐ 8 ˆ Ðinformed€of€his€15„day€notice€of€hearing€right,€and€he€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€thatÐ $ t Ðright.€The€record€contains€no€basis€for€Applicant€to€have€assumed€that€he€was€entitled€to€aÐ  ` Ðfavorable€outcome€or€that€his€waiver€for€the€15„day€notice€requirement€would€have€resulted€inÐ ü L  Ðany€particular€outcome.€He€was€not€denied€the€due€process€that€the€Directive€affords.€AdverseÐ è 8  Ðdecision€affirmed.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ_ÔCASENOÔ_Ô:€16„03485.a1Ð ¬ü  ÐÌDATE:€11/9/2017Ð „Ô  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDATE:€November€9,€2017Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌÒ.؉ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€V) °°xdE°gAßÐ  p ÐÌIn€Re:Ð k ÐÌà  à„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìà  à€à ` àà ¸ àÐ ß/ ÐÌApplicant€for€Security€ClearanceÐ · ÐÌßA€V) °°xdE°ŽgAßÐ ß Ð)Ð  p Ð)Ð  \ Ð)Ð øH Ð)Ð ä4  Ð)Ð Ð ! Ð)Ð ¼ " Ð)Ð ¨ø# Ð)Ð ”ä$ ÐÐ €Ð% ÐÓp°œXÓÌÌÌà p àÔ_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€16„03485Ð ä4( ÐÐ Ð ) ÐÒ.؉ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓò òÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ X ¨) ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ #l, Ðó óÌÔ‡&óÃ%XXÔò òFOR€GOVERNMENTó óÐ ô$D . ÐJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselÐ Ì%!/ ÐÌò òFOR€APPLICANTó óÐ |'Ì"1 Ðò òòòPro€Seóóó óÔ#†XíX%&ó× #ÔÐ T(¤#2 Ðà @ àÌà @ àÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€security€clearance.€€OnÐ +R&5 ÐJanuary€6,€2017,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€for€thatÐ î+>'6 Ðdecisionð!ðsecurity€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€of€Department€ofÐ Ú,*(7 ÐDefense€Directive€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€Ð Æ-)8 ÐOn€August€14,€2017,€after€the€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)Ð ° ÐAdministrative€Judge€Darlene€D.€Ô_ÔLokeyÔ_Ô€Anderson€denied€Applicantððs€request€for€a€securityÐ œì Ðclearance.€€Applicant€appealed€pursuant€to€Directive€ðððð€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àApplicant€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€€whether€Applicant€was€denied€due€processÐ `° Ðand€whether€the€Judgeððs€adverse€decision€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€ConsistentÐ L œ Ðwith€the€following,€we€affirm.à h àÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÔ_Ôà  àThe€SOR€alleged€that€Applicant€failed€to€file€his€Federal€and€state€income€tax€returns€fromÐ ü L  Ð2006€through€2012€and€that€he€had€four€Federal€tax€liens€filed€against€him€totaling€about€$59,000.€Ð è 8  ÐApplicant€admitted€each€of€the€SOR€allegations.€€He€attributed€his€tax€problems€to€believingÐ Ô$  Ðmistakenly€that€payments€he€received€were€non„taxable€travel€expenses€instead€of€his€salary.€€InÐ À  Ð2015,€he€learned€from€the€Internal€Revenue€Service€(IRS)€that€those€payments€were€taxable.€€InÐ ¬ü  ÐNovember€2016,€he€began€working€with€an€IRS€agent€to€resolve€his€tax€problems.€€In€a€letter€€fromÐ ˜è  ÐApril€2017,€the€IRS€agent€states€that€he€anticipates€Applicantððs€case€will€be€resolved€once€the€returnsÐ „Ô  Ðare€received.€€Prior€to€receipt€of€the€SOR,€Applicant€worked€with€a€tax€preparer€on€filing€his€2010„Ð pÀ Ð2012€income€tax€returns.€€After€the€hearing,€Applicant€submitted€a€letter€indicating€that€his€2010„Ð \¬ Ð2013€income€tax€returns€have€been€finalized€and€have€been€faxed€to€the€IRS€agent.€€He€is€nowÐ H˜ Ðworking€on€his€2006„2009€income€tax€returns.€€For€2014„2016,€he€filed€his€income€tax€returns€andÐ 4„ Ðpaid€his€income€taxes.€€The€Judge€concluded€that€none€of€the€mitigating€conditions€fully€appliedÐ  p Ðbecause€Applicant€had€not€yet€filed€any€of€the€income€tax€returns€in€question€nor€had€he€begunÐ  \ Ðresolving€the€four€Federal€tax€liens.€€€€€€€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€the€appeal€brief,€Applicant€states€that€he€ð ðagreed€to€waive€my€right€to€the€15€days€from€theÐ Ð  Ðdate€of€the€notice€of€appeal.ðð€€Appeal€Brief€at€1.€€From€the€context€of€his€brief,€it€is€apparent€thatÐ ¼  ÐApplicant€is€referring€to€his€waiver€of€the€right€to€have€at€least€15€days€advanced€notice€of€the€timeÐ ¨ø Ðand€place€of€the€hearing€under€Directive€ðð€E3.1.8.€€€He€contends€that€he€waived€the€15„day€noticeÐ ”ä Ðrequirement€based€on€his€assumption€that€the€ð ðwordðð€of€the€IRS€agent€would€carry€enough€weightÐ €Ð Ðfor€the€Judge€to€issue€a€favorable€decision.€€He€further€states,€ð ðHad€I€known€that€the€word€of€the€IRSÐ l¼ Ðagent€would€not€be€sufficient€for€a€favorable€decision€I€would€have€exercised€my€right€to€have€theÐ X ¨ Ð15€days€from€the€notice€.€.€.€and€my€case€would€have€taken€place€later€in€the€year€and€[the€Judge]Ð D!” Ðwould€have€seen€that€I€am€currently€in€an€installment€agreement€and€my€taxes€all€filed.ðð€€AppealÐ 0"€  ÐBrief€at€1.€€€à ` àÐ #l! ÐÌà  àAt€the€beginning€of€the€hearing,€Department€Counsel€advised€the€Judge€that€he€had€explainedÐ ô$D # Ðto€Applicant€that€he€had€an€ð ðabsolute€rightðð€to€receive€15€days€notice€of€the€hearing,€and€ApplicantÐ à%0!$ Ðagreed€to€waive€that€right.€€Tr.€at€7.€€Upon€questioning€from€the€Judge,€Applicant€agreed€that€heÐ Ì&"% Ðwaived€that€right€and€acknowledged€that€he€had€sufficient€time€to€prepare€for€the€hearing.€€Tr.€at€8.€Ð ¸'#& ÐDue€to€Applicantððs€waiver€of€the€15„day€notice,€the€Judge€also€left€the€record€open€for€a€month€afterÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€hearing€to€provide€him€the€opportunity€to€present€additional€documentation.€€Tr.€at€9€and€79„€84.€Ð )à$( ÐAfter€reviewing€the€record,€the€Board€concludes€that€Applicant€was€adequately€informed€of€his€15„Ð |*Ì%) Ðday€notice€of€hearing€right,€and€he€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€that€right.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCRÐ h+¸&* ÐCase€No.€06„24213€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Jun.€10,€2008).€€The€record€contains€no€basis€for€Applicant€toÐ T,¤'+ Ðhave€assumed€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€favorable€outcome€or€that€his€waiver€of€the€15„day€noticeÐ @-(, Ðrequirement€would€have€resulted€in€any€particular€outcome.€€He€was€not€denied€the€due€process€thatÐ ° Ðthe€Directive€affords.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àApplicant€contends€he€presented€documentation€that€he€filed€his€2010„2013€Federal€incomeÐ tÄ Ðtax€returns.€€In€her€findings€of€fact,€the€Judge€correctly€noted€that€Applicant€presented€a€post„hearingÐ `° Ðletter€in€which€he€stated€he€finalized€those€tax€returns€and€faxed€them€to€the€IRS€agent.€He€did€notÐ L œ Ðsubmit€copies€of€those€tax€returns€with€that€letter.€€The€Board€has€previously€noted€that€it€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€for€a€Judge€to€expect€applicants€to€present€documentation€showing€resolution€of€Ô_ÔtheirÐ $ t Ðfinancial€problems.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€€07„10310€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Jul.€30,€2008).€€In€theÐ  ` Ðabsence€of€evidence€corroborating€Applicantððs€post„hearing€statement,€the€Judge€did€not€error€inÐ ü L  Ðconcluding€that€Applicant€had€not€yet€filed€his€tax€returns€for€the€years€in€question.€€Additionally,Ð è 8  Ðeven€if€Applicant€had€established€that€he€filed€those€tax€returns€after€the€hearing,€the€Judge€could€stillÐ Ô$  Ðconsider€the€circumstances€underlying€his€tax€filing€deficiencies€for€what€they€may€reveal€about€hisÐ À  Ðworthiness€for€a€security€clearance.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€14„02394€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Aug.€17,Ð ¬ü  Ð2015).€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€his€appeal€brief,€Applicant€provided€information€that€he€did€not€previously€submit€to€theÐ pÀ ÐJudge.€€Such€information€constitutes€new€evidence€that€the€Appeal€Board€cannot€consider.€€DirectiveÐ \¬ Ððð€E3.1.29.€€The€balance€of€Applicantððs€arguments€amount€to€a€disagreement€with€the€JudgeððsÐ H˜ Ðweighing€of€the€evidence.€€For€example,€he€argues€that€the€statements€provided€by€the€IRS€agent€andÐ 4„ Ðhis€tax€preparer€should€be€sufficient€to€resolve€the€security€concerns.€€The€presence€of€someÐ  p Ðmitigating€evidence€does€not€alone€compel€the€Judge€to€make€a€favorable€security€clearance€decision.€Ð  \ ÐAs€the€trier€of€fact,€the€Judge€has€to€weigh€the€evidence€as€a€whole€and€decide€whether€the€favorableÐ øH Ðevidence€outweighs€the€unfavorable€evidence,€or€òòvice€versaóó.€€A€partyððs€disagreement€with€theÐ ä4 ÐJudgeððs€weighing€of€the€evidence,€or€an€ability€to€argue€for€a€different€interpretation€of€the€evidence,Ð Ð  Ðis€not€sufficient€to€demonstrate€the€Judge€weighed€the€evidence€or€reached€conclusions€in€a€mannerÐ ¼  Ðthat€is€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óóÔ_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€15„00650€at€2€(App.€Bd.Ð ¨ø ÐJun.€27,€2016).Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€evidence€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theÐ l¼ Ðdecision.€€A€person€who€fails€repeatedly€to€fulfill€his€or€her€legal€obligations,€such€as€filing€taxÐ X ¨ Ðreturns€and€paying€taxes€when€due,€does€not€demonstrate€the€high€degree€of€good€judgment€andÐ D!” Ðreliability€required€of€those€granted€access€to€classified€information.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€15„Ð 0"€  Ð08782€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Apr.€5,€2017).€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€ð ðThe€generalÐ #l! Ðstandard€is€that€a€clearance€may€be€granted€only€when€ððclearly€consistent€with€the€interests€of€theÐ $X" Ðnational€security.ðððð€€òòDepartment€of€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Directive,Ð ô$D # ÐEncl.€2,€App€A€ðð€2(b):€€ð ðAny€doubt€concerning€personnel€being€considered€for€national€securityÐ à%0!$ Ðeligibility€will€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€national€security.ððÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ @-(, ЇÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà@ââ(ìàò òOrderó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€Decision€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð  ` ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€Michael€Ô_ÔRaððananÔ_Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ä  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMichael€Ô_ÔRaððananÔ_ÔÐ °  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ œì  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ ˆØ  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€William€S.€Fields€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô_ÔóóÔ_ÔÐ 8ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWilliam€S.€FieldsÐ $t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ üL ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ¬ü Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€F.€DuffyÐ ˜è Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ „Ô Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€Ô_ÔBoardÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ pÀ Ð