Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-8 and Applicant’s reply to the FORM (AE A).1
DOHA makes trustworthiness decisions for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions2
defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (Regulation), dated January 1987. DOHA
decides ADP cases under the policies and procedures established by Department of Defense (DoD) Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive) and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD on September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 10-07235
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is denied.1
On 18 October 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing trustworthiness concerns
under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR,2
requesting a decision without hearing. The record in this case closed 24 January 2011,
the day Department Counsel registered no objection to Applicant’s response to the
Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). DOHA assigned the case to me 1
February 2011.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 44-year-old IT support
coordinator employed by a U.S. defense contractor since December 1997. He has not
previously had a background investigation. He remarried in May 2009 and has three
children and two stepchildren.
 
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits document, and Applicant admits 12
delinquent debts totaling nearly $53,000. Many of the debts are small: three are less
than $500 each; another four are less than $1,000 each. However, Applicant has made
no effort to resolve the debts.
Applicant completed his public trust application in August 2009 (Item 1). He
disclosed that he had delinquent debts. He discussed these debts with a government
investigator in March 2010 (Item 5), and stated his intent to resolve them.
Applicant attributes his financial problems to his divorce in 2005 and an accident
he was in. He states that the debts were the result of the divorce settlement allocating
the marital debt. However, he provided no corroboration of his claims. His October 2009
credit report (Item 7) shows that the delinquent debts are his individual accounts. A joint
mortgage is current. Other joint accounts and authorized user accounts have been paid
and closed. The four delinquent medical debts (SOR 1.b-e) total $1,342 and may be
the amounts due after his health insurance has paid its share.
Applicant’s reply to the FORM is a plea for more time and an invitation for the
Government to obtain the information Applicant could have submitted, but did not. The
record is silent on Applicant’s work record or character.
Policies
The AG list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to public trust
information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions
under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must
also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG
¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. Still,
specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed when a case can be measured by
them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to public trust information.
Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative
guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Public trust determinations resolve whether it is clearly consistent with national
security to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for public trust positions. The
Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the
SOR. If it does,  the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
Government’s case. Because no one has a right to eligibility, the applicant bears a
heavy burden of persuasion.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
3
Persons with access to public trust information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national security” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has significant delinquent
debt that he has done nothing to address, despite knowing since at least March 2010
that the Government viewed the delinquent debts with concern.  The October 20104
SOR and the December 2010 FORM triggered no sense of urgency in Applicant to even
begin addressing his debts. The record contains no evidence in extenuation, mitigation,
or rehabilitation. Consequently, none of the financial considerations mitigating factors
apply. Further, there is no evidence of a plan for repayment or the possibility of a plan
for repayment. The record also lacks any information upon which to base a “whole
person” analysis. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-l: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant eligibility for a public trust position for
Applicant. Eligibility for ADP position denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge