Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-11.1
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. 09-07198
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s eligibility for public trust position is1
denied.
On 6 October 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing trustworthiness concerns under
Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting2
a decision without hearing. The record in this case closed 21 February 2011, the day
Applicant’s response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was due.
He submitted no response. DOHA assigned the case to me 18 May 2011.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.d, I-j, and m-
o. He is a 45-year-old shipper/packer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since July
2008. He has not previously had a background investigation.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits document, 16 delinquent debts
totaling over $56,000. Applicant admits ten debts totaling over $18,000. Applicant has
documented no efforts to resolve the debts.
Applicant completed his public trust application in August 2008 (Item 4). He did
not disclose any financial issues. However, he discussed some debts with a
government investigator in May 2009 (Item 7), and responded to interrogatories about a
longer list of debts in March 2010 (Item 6). These three documents constitute
Applicant’s entire discussion of his debts.
Applicant did not give any explanation for his debts, nor did he document the
claimed debt status in his March 2010 interrogatories. He claimed to have paid three
debts (1.a, 1.g, and 1.m) and to be paying two more by payroll deduction (1.I and 1.p).
He claimed to be making plans to pay four debts (1.d, 1.f, 1.k, and 1.o) and had no
knowledge of three others (1.h, 1.l, and 1.n). 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, applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.
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.
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
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 May 2009 that
the Government viewed the delinquent debts with concern.  The March 20104
interrogatories, the October 2010 SOR, and the December 2010 FORM triggered no
sense of urgency in Applicant to document the status of the debts or prove any debts
had been paid. 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-p: 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