1
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
             
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
-------, -------- ------- )       ADP Case No. 10-05992 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Questionnaires for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on 
July 9, 2009. On October 29, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns 
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive 
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), 
as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and 
the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on 
September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 15, 2010. Applicant 
requested his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
On December 15, 2010, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written 
case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was provided to the 
Applicant on December 23, 2010. He was given the opportunity to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant filed a Response to 
the FORM on January 13, 2011, within the 30 day time allowed that would have expired 
on January 22, 2011. I received the case assignment on February 8, 2011. Based upon 
a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to sensitive information is 
denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted all allegations in the SOR (Subparagraphs 1.a to 1.t). His 
admissions are incorporated herein as factual findings. (Item 4)  
 
 Applicant is 47 years old, married, and has two daughters. Applicant works for a 
defense contractor and has for the past two years. (Item 5) 
 
 On April 2, 2010, Applicant met with a government investigator to discuss his 
delinquent accounts. During that interview, the investigator reviewed a credit bureau 
report (CBR) that disclosed some accounts were opened in 2004 and thereafter. 
Applicant admitted he could not manage his money and took out too many credit cards. 
His debts consist of 15 credit cards, two loans, a rent debt, a cable television debt, and 
an unpaid telephone bill. The amounts of money owed range from $215 as the lowest to 
$2,095 as the highest. He admitted to the government investigator that he did not have 
enough income to pay his debts. His income of about $1,900 monthly is used to support 
his wife and children. His monthly expenses totaled $2,330. On September 10, 2010, he 
reviewed the summary of his April 2010 interview and attested to its veracity. (Items 6-
9) 
 
Based on CBRs dated September 2009, March 2010, and September 2010, the 
SOR alleged 20 delinquent debts totaling $18,476 that began accruing in 2004. 
Applicant did not provide documentation that any of the debts are paid or resolved. He 
admitted to the government investigator that he has not participated in credit counseling 
or budget education. He provided no information concerning the quality of his job 
performance. He submitted no character references or other evidence tending to 
establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. (Items 7-9) 
 
Applicant was unemployed from October 2006 to December 2006. He was then 
employed until June 2008. His employment ended with his resignation from that job. He 
obtained another job in September 2008. Applicant’s January 13, 2011, Response to 
the FORM stated that his large debt has not affected his job performance and he 
intends to file bankruptcy by the end of February 2011. As of the date of this decision no 
evidence of any bankruptcy filing was submitted by Applicant. (Items 5, 6, FORM 
Response) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
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 
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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, 
impartial, and commonsense 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel and 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 
 
 
 
 
 
4
sensitive information. See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for financial considerations is set 
out in AG & 18:       
 
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.  
 
AG ¶ 19 notes two disqualifying conditions that could potentially raise 
trustworthiness concerns in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
Based on three CBRs and his admissions, Applicant has been unable or 
unwilling to satisfy delinquent debts that began accruing in 2004 and remain unresolved 
at present. The evidence is sufficient to raise these two disqualifying conditions.  
 
After the Government produced substantial evidence of those two 
disqualifications, the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence and prove a 
mitigating condition. AG ¶ 20 sets forth conditions that could mitigate financial 
considerations trustworthiness concerns: 
(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; 
 
 
 
 
 
5
(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; and 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. 
Applicant’s financial delinquencies began accruing in 2004 and remain unpaid or 
unresolved. Because the problems are ongoing and not isolated, there is insufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the indebtedness is unlikely to recur or continue. 
Hence, AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. He did not present sufficient evidence that the 
accumulation of $18,476 of delinquent debt was due to conditions beyond his control or 
that he attempted to responsibly manage the debts once they accrued, as required 
under AG ¶ 20(b). In fact, he acknowledged that between 2004 and the present he 
accepted many credit card offers, leading to the accumulation of debt.  
 
Applicant established no mitigation under AG & 20(c) or AG & 20(d). He did not 
submit evidence that he received financial counseling or that he paid or resolved any of 
the 20 debts, which would indicate that the situation is under control. Nor, did he 
present evidence that he made a good-faith effort to pay or resolve them. There is no 
evidence in the record verifying that he formally disputed or investigated any of the 
SOR-listed debts, which is necessary to trigger the application of AG & 20(e). There is 
no evidence to support the application of AG & 20(f). 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant=s eligibility for a trustworthiness determination by considering the totality of the 
applicant=s conduct and all relevant 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 
 
 
 
 
 
6
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 a 
trustworthiness determination must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon 
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature individual, who 
has worked for a defense contractor since September 2008. In April 2010, he learned of 
the Government’s concerns relating to his financial delinquencies. In October 2010, 
DOHA filed a SOR, and in December 2010, the Government filed the FORM. For almost 
a year, Applicant has known that his delinquent debts were creating trustworthiness 
concerns and potentially affecting his employment. Despite that knowledge, he did not 
provide proof that he has taken sufficient steps to address any of the 20 delinquent 
debts. Applicant failed to demonstrate financial rehabilitation, which would indicate that 
the continuance of these unaddressed obligations is likely. The record contains 
insufficient evidence about his character, trustworthiness, or reliability, which could 
potentially mitigate the financial considerations concerns or make their recurrence less 
likely. 
 
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present 
eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness determination. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns arising from his 
financial considerations. 
 
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, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
          Subparagraph 1.a to 1.t:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a 
public trust position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
                                      
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge