DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-03216 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for ADP – II Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: John Glendon, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleges Applicant had 16 past due accounts 
totaling more than $62,000. Twelve of the debts have not been paid nor is there an 
arrangement paying these debts. Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security 
concerns, but failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility 
to access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On September 6, 2007, Applicant submitted his Questionnaires for Public Trust 
Position (SF 85P). On July 23, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness concerns 
under Guideline F, financial considerations, based on a history of financial problems as 
evicenced by delinquent debts and Guideline E, personal conduct, for falsified material 
on his SF 85P. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
 
 
 
1
 
 
 
2
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); Department of Defense (DoD) 
Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, dated Jan. 1987, as amended 
(Regulation), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President 
on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs 
issued after September 1, 2006.  
 
 On August 21, 2008, Applicant’s answer to the SOR was received in which 
Applicant requested a hearing and provided nine attachments listed as Exhibits A 
through I to his answer. On September 22, 2008, I was assigned the case. On October 
7, 2008, DOHA issued a notice of hearing scheduling the hearing held on October 16, 
2008. The government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 7, which were admitted into 
evidence. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibit A, which was 
admitted into evidence. The record was kept open to allow Applicant to submit 
additional matters. On October 27, 2008, additional documents were received. There 
being no objection, the material was admitted into evidence as Ex. B. On October 24, 
2008, the transcript (Tr.) was received.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.g, 1.p, 
and 2.c of the SOR. He neither admitted nor denied SOR ¶ 2.b. He admitted the 
remaining factual allegations of the SOR. He admits owing more than $15,000 on 12 
debts. (Tr. 19) Applicant also provided additional information with his answer to the 
SOR to support his request for eligibility for access to sensitive information. There being 
no objection, the additional material was admitted into the record and referred to 
hereafter as “Answer Ex.”  
 
 Applicant is a 37-year-old health program policy analyst who has worked for a 
defense contractor since September 2007, and is seeking to obtain accesses to 
sensitive information. (Ex. 1) Applicant maintains two jobs. He teaches medical 
assisting at night and is paid $23 per hour, which generates $15,000 to $16,000 per 
year. (Tr. 41) In October 2008, Applicant was offered a new job paying $85,000. (Ex. A) 
 
Applicant was trained in the Air Force as a medical technician. (Tr. 42) Applicant 
was in the Air Force ten years and ten months, from January 1990 to January 2001. (Tr. 
42, Ex. 1) Applicant received an honorable discharge and left as a staff sergeant, pay 
grade E-5. (Tr. 42, Ex. 6)  
 
 In August 2000, a paternity test determined Applicant was not the father of one of 
his wife’s children. (Answer Ex. B) In March 2003, Applicant and his wife separated. 
(Answer Ex. A) In June 2003, a temporary protective order was issued against 
Applicant. (Answer Ex. G, I) From the time of separation and the divorce date, Applicant 
did not know his wife’s location. (Tr. 52) Applicant has not seen his ex-wife since July 
2006. (Tr. 53) In February 2004, at the time of the divorce decree, Applicant learned his 
 
 
 
3
wife had obtained a $922 monthly child support obligation and that he owed $19,000 in 
past due child support. (Tr. 53, 56)  
 
Applicant agreed to the support obligation in hopes he would be allowed to see 
his child. (Tr. 53) In hindsight, it was a bad decision because Applicant has yet to see 
his child. The balance of the arrearage occurred when Applicant was out of work due to 
illness. (Tr. 54) Applicant received partial disability from April 2005 to mid July 2005, 
which paid 60% of his income. (Tr. 57, 60) He was also unemployed from January 2006 
to March 2006. (Tr. 57, 61) Prior to his unemployment he was making $55,000 a year. 
(Tr. 62)  
 
Applicant had difficulty serving his ex-wife in his attempt to have his child support 
lowered. (Tr. 64) In June 2007, the child support was $560 per month with an additional 
$100 per month to pay the arrearage. (Tr. 31) In April 2008, Applicant returned to court 
and discovered he was approximately $26,000 in arrears on his child support (Tr. 54, 
SOR ¶ 1.q, $26,267, which is the same debt as SOR ¶ 1.g, $20,696). Applicant pays 
$304 child support every two weeks for his one child of the marriage. (Tr. 31, 51, Ex. B) 
Applicant is current on his monthly child support payment, which includes payment on 
the arrearage. Payment is automatically deducted from his checking account. (Tr. 32, 
Ex. B) 
 
In 2003, Applicant bought a Nissan, which was repossessed in 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.c, 
$6,475, Tr. 73) Applicant owes: a $1,400 telephone bill (SOR ¶ 1.b, Tr. 72); a $1,717 
credit card debt (SOR ¶ 1.e, Tr. 75); a $1,670 doctor’s bill (SOR ¶ 1. f, Tr. 75); three 
medical debts $196 (SOR ¶ 1. h), $435 (SOR ¶ 1.i), and $457 (SOR ¶ 1.j); a $59 utility 
gas bill (SOR ¶ 1.k); a $1,162 hospital bill (SOR ¶ 1.l); and two telephone bills of $267 
(SOR ¶ 1. n) and $77 (SOR ¶ 1. o).  
 
In 2004, Applicant returned to school securing his bachelor’s degree in health 
care management. Applicant is paying his student loans by automatic deduction from 
his bank account. Monthly, he pays $112 on one loan and $208 on the other. (Tr. 79) 
While in school, Applicant was overpaid $896 by the Veteran Administration (VA). This 
debt (SOR ¶ 1. m) is paid each month by a $100 automatic deduction from Applicant’s 
bank account. (Tr. 45) Applicant owed a $200 traffic ticket (SOR ¶ 1. p), which was paid 
following the hearing. (Ex. B)  
 
 In March 2005, Applicant was evaluated for memory loss, change in speech 
pattern, and fainting. (Answer Ex. E) Applicant learned he suffered from partial complex 
seizures. (Answer Ex. C) In 2005, Applicant suffered his last seizure. (Tr. 36) In May 
2005, Applicant’s doctor stated Applicant was suffering from a generalized anxiety 
disorder. He was suffering numbness, tingling in his hands and feet, generalized 
weakness, lightheadedness, and headaches. (Tr. 34) Applicant was treated long term 
for depression. (Answer Ex. E) Applicant has been on medication for the last four years 
and his depression is under control. (Tr. 33) 
 
 
 
 
4
 In Applicant’s Questionnaires for Public Trust Position (SF 85P) dated 
September 6, 2007, Applicant failed to list a state tax lien (SOR ¶ 1.a, $547, Ex. 3). 
Applicant was unaware of the tax lien four months after it was issued when he 
completed his SF 85P. (Tr. 36, 39) On his federal tax return, Applicant claimed as a 
dependant a woman with whom he lived. (Tr. 38, 66-67) The lien came about when the 
deduction was disallowed. In July 2005, Applicant and the woman married. (Tr. 68) 
Applicant received notice he owed some $500, which his wife said she would pay. (Tr. 
68) Applicant does not remember receiving any notice or paperwork concerning the tax 
lien before the lien was issued. (Tr. 39, 70) Applicant has made a $50 payment on the 
tax debt. (Tr. 49) 
 
 In April 2008, Applicant entered into an agreement with a financial counseling 
firm or credit management agency. (Answer Ex. F) The financial service is to negotiate 
with creditors to pay Applicant’s debts and have them removed from his credit report. 
Applicant went to the service intending to clean up his credit. (Tr. 45) The agreement 
will address eight debts totaling $17,351. Once the service is paid a $2,500 fee, the 
service will start negotiating with Applicant’s creditors concerning the debts. (Tr. 48, 49)  
 
The financial service fee is to be paid by monthly electronic payments. (Ex. B) 
For three months, from April 2008 to June 2008, Applicant was to pay the service $330 
each month for a total of $990, which he has done. For the next 12 months, from July 
2008 through June 2009, Applicant is to pay the service $131.55 per month for a total of 
$1,578. Starting in July 2008, Applicant was to save $198.45 each month in order to 
have a fund of money from which offers will be made to negotiate payment to his 
creditors. (Ex. B, Tr. 48) The service has yet to negotiate with a creditor or make any 
type of payment. Once paid in June 2009, the financial service will start negotiations.  
 
Applicant has not paid the small debts listed in the SOR because he is paying the 
service to negotiate on his behalf. (Tr. 78) Seven of Applicant’s debts were under $500 
each, of which, three are under $200 each. 
 
In response to the March 2008 written interrogatories, (Ex 6) Applicant submitted 
a personal financial statement showing a gross salary of $5,000 and a monthly net 
remainder (income less expenses and deductions) of $1,354. (Ex. 6) Applicant provides 
financial support to his mother, grandmother, and his sister who has two children. (Tr. 
83-84). He also helps his brother. (Tr. 87) Applicant plans to be debt free in a year and 
a half. (Tr. 84) Applicant contributes $76 every two weeks to his 401(k) retirement plan, 
the balance of which is not part of the record. (Ex. B)  
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.” 
(See Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.) “The standard that must be met for . 
. . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s 
loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to 
sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” (See 
 
 
 
5
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence 
and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, indicates trustworthiness 
adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense Security Service 
and Office of Personnel Management. Department of Defense contractor personnel are 
afforded the right to the procedures contained in the Directive before any final 
unfavorable access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)  
 
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the 
Administrative Judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the 
AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
[sensitive] information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The 
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable 
trustworthiness decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
sensitive information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in 
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty 
of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple 
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
 
 
6
                                                          
 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Revised Adjudicative (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet 
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to 
protect classified information. An individual who is financially 
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect 
of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
upon terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an 
applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk 
that is inconsistent with eligibility for access to sensitive information. An applicant is not 
required to be debt free, but is required to manage his finances so as to meet his 
financial obligations. 
 
 The record evidence supports a conclusion Applicant has a history of financial 
problems. Applicant owed approximately $42,000 on 15 past due obligations.1 
Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit report, his SOR 
response, his response to interrogatories, and his testimony. Throughout this process, 
he admitted responsibility for all but three delinquent debs. His child support obligation 
was listed twice (SOR ¶¶ 1. g and 1. q) and he denied the $200 traffic ticket (SOR ¶ 1. 
p). Applicant has provided insufficient documentation to show significant progress 
resolving his debts. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts” and AG ¶19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply. 
 
 Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶¶ 20(a) – (e) are 
potentially applicable: 
 
1 The SOR fails to list an allegation in SOR ¶ 1. d. 
 
 
 
7
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast 
doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment; 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely 
beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or 
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem 
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is 
under control; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
 Approximately half of Applicant’s debt ($26,278 of $41,828) relates to Applicant’s  
child support arrearage. The arrearage was incurred between the time of his separation 
and divorce from his now ex-wife. Applicant agreed to the monthly child support 
obligation in a mistaken belief that if he agreed to the amount his ex-wife would allow 
him visitation with his child. His child support obligation is automatically deducted from 
his pay, but his ex-wife has continued in her refusal to allow him to see his child. He is 
paying $100 monthly to the VA on an overpayment he received while he was a student. 
However, there are 12 additional debts totaling approximately $14,000 that remain 
unpaid.  
 
Applicant’s medical problems caused him to receive partial disability payments 
from April 2005 to mid July 2005, which paid 60% of his income. He was unemployed 
the first three months of 2006. Additionally, Applicant provides support to his mother, 
sister, grandmother, and brother.  
 
AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply to the 12 debts. They did not happen long ago, they 
are not infrequent, and were not incurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to 
recur or cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment. The debts include medical bills, a utility bill, telephone bills, a credit card debt, 
and the 2004 vehicle repossession. No payments have been made on these debts.  
 
Under AG & 20(b), Applicant experienced both separation and divorce along with 
the financial burden associated with each and medical problems. AG & 20(b) partially 
applies because these are problems beyond his control, but by making no payment on 
 
 
 
8
the 12 delinquent debts since he returned to full-time employment he has failed to act 
responsibly as to these debts. Three of the debts are under two hundred dollars and 
four more are under $500 each.  
 
There is no indication Applicant received counseling for the problem nor is there 
a clear indication the problem is being resolved or is under control. Although no 
payments are being made on the 12 debts, Applicant hopes to be debt free in a year 
and a half. AG & 20(c) does not apply. 
 
Applicant has paid a traffic ticket and is making payments on his VA debt and on 
his child support obligation. & 20(d) applies to these three debts because Applicant has 
initiated a good-faith effort to repay these overdue creditors or otherwise resolve the 
debts. The other debts are being handled by a finance service. Once the finance service 
has received its $2,500 fee, scheduled to be June 2009, it will start negotiating 
settlement on Applicant’s debts using money Applicant is to have saved. However, 
starting in July 2008, Applicant was to save $198.45 monthly in order to have money 
when the service negotiated settlements on his debts. Applicant has not saved any of 
the required money. There is no good-faith effort to repay the 12 overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve these debts.  
 
Personal Conduct  
 
The Directive sets out various factors relevant to an applicant=s personal conduct 
that may be potentially disqualifying. Paragraph 15 of the Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 
states a concern where there is conduct “involving questionable judgment, lack of 
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise 
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified 
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers 
during the eligibility for access to sensitive information process or any other failure to 
cooperate with the eligibility for access to sensitive information process.” 
 
In June 2003, Applicant’s now ex-wife requested and was granted a protective 
order. This accompanied a period of separation prior to their divorce. His ex-wife‘s 
conduct may have been influenced by Applicant’s learning he was not the father of a 
child he believed was his. His ex-wife has acted in such a way to prevent Applicant from 
exercising his court ordered visitation. There is nothing in the record showing the 
issuance of this protective order or the factors leading to its issuance that would 
adversely reflect on Applicant’s security worthiness.  
 
Applicant incurred an arrearage for child support. Between the time of their 
separation and divorce, Applicant did not know his now ex-wife’s location and she 
prevented him from seeing his child. He was unaware of the child support obligation 
until the time of the divorce. He agreed to the monthly child support payments in a 
mistaken belief that paying the amount would assure him visitation with his child. He 
was wrong. He is paying his child support obligation and making payment on the 
 
 
 
9
arrearage. Neither the child support obligation nor the arrearage adversely reflects on 
Applicant’s security worthiness.  
 
Under AG & 16 (a) “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant 
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar 
form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award 
benefits or status, determine eligibility for access to sensitive information eligibility or 
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities” and & 16 (b) “deliberately providing 
false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, 
security official, competent medical authority, or other official government 
representative” are security concerns. 
 
Applicant failed to list a tax lien on his SF 85P. Applicant knew tax was owed, 
and thought his girlfriend, later to be his wife, paid the tax debt once they were notified 
of the delinquency. It was only after completing his SF 85 P that he learned a tax lien 
had been issued four months before he completed the form.  
 
 The Government has shown Applicant failed to list his tax lien, but this does not 
prove the Applicant deliberately failed to disclose information about the lien. Applicant 
has denied intentional falsification. Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of 
a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the Government when 
applying for eligibility for access to sensitive information is a security concern. But every 
inaccurate statement is not a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate and 
material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully. An omission concerning a 
tax lien is not deliberate if the person did not know it existed. When Applicant completed 
his SF 85P he was unaware of the lien.  
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for eligibility for access to sensitive information by considering the 
totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge 
should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for 
eligibility for access to sensitive information must be an overall commonsense judgment 
based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.  
 
 
 
10
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The majority of the debts incurred 
were not the type that indicates poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to 
abide by rules and regulations. Six of the debts set forth in the SOR were not incurred 
on luxuries, but were for medical treatment and taxes. This cannot be said of the credit 
card debt (SOR & 1. e, $1,717) or the delinquent telephone debts (SOR & 1. e, $1,403; 
SOR & 1. n, $267; or, SOR & 1. o, $77).  
 
The issue is not simply whether all his debts are paid—it is whether his financial 
circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to have access to sensitive information. 
(See AG & 2(a) (1).) Applicant has not addressed 12 of his delinquent debts and it 
appears no payment will be made on any of these debts until after June 2009. Overall, 
the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for access to sensitive information. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant 
has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.  
 
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot 
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to justify the award 
of access to sensitive information. The awarding of access to sensitive information is 
not a once in a life time occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both 
disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under the Applicant=s current 
circumstances a clearance is not recommended, but should the Applicant be afforded 
an opportunity to reapply for access to sensitive information in the future, having paid 
the delinquent obligations, established compliance with a repayment plan, or otherwise 
addressed the obligations, he may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of his trust 
worthiness. However, a clearance at this time is not warranted.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1. a – 1. c:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1. d:    No allegation is stated. 
  Subparagraph 1. e and 1. f:  Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1. g:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1. h – 1. l:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.m:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1. n and 1. o:  Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1. p and 1. q:  For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 
 
 
11
  Subparagraph 2. a – 2. c:   For Applicant 
 
    
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
_________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge