The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ADP Case No. 13-01347
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On February 24, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing trustworthiness concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken
under  DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a decision based on the
written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated April 30, 2014.  Applicant received the FORM on May 7, 2014.1
She did not submit additional information for the record. I received the case assignment
on September 12, 2014. Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant has not
mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised. Eligibility for a position of trust is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted allegations under Guideline F, ¶¶
1.a-1.t with explanations. She also admitted the allegation of falsification under
Guideline E. (Item 4) 
Applicant is 48 years old. She is a referral specialist employed with an insurance
company. Applicant graduated from high school in 1985. (Item 6) She received an
associates degree in 2012. Applicant is married and has one adult child. (Item 4)
Applicant has been employed with her current employer since February 2013. This is
her first application for a position of trust, which she completed on February 23, 2013.
(Item 5) 
 The SOR alleges 20 delinquent debts totaling approximately $25,310. These
debts include federal and state tax liabilities and charged-off accounts. (Item 1) Credit
reports confirm the debts. (Items 7, and 8) 
Applicant explained in her Answer that unemployment caused several debts and
that she had no money to pay the debts. She also stated that the creditors would not
work with her. She acknowledged that she had collection accounts for several credit
cards. However, she explained that she did not list other accounts on her official
application because they were “old” or that she was unaware of them. She stated that
she is in the process of paying her bills as best as she can. 
In 2013, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that she was
unemployed from June 2011 until December 2012. The record reflects that she was
employed in other positions from 1996. (Item 6) She acknowledged that she had
defaulted on an auto loan. (Item 6)
 
Applicant provided documentation that she paid her state tax obligation (SOR
1.a). She submitted a satisfaction of judgment from 2013 and 2014. (Item 4) The
amount in question was $674 for delinquent state income taxes.
As for SOR 1.b, Applicant is in repayment status for her federal tax obligation.
She owed approximately $3,527 for delinquent income taxes.  Applicant submitted an
2013 agreement to begin installment payments with the IRS to repay arrears for tax
years 2006-2008 and 2010. She also provided a document showing a $50 payment that
was made in February 2014. A handwritten note was submitted for the March 2014
payment. (Item 4)
As to the remaining SOR debts, Applicant did not provide any documentation to
support that she has paid or is in a repayment plan for them. She admitted the debts
and claimed that SOR 1.l was paid on February 9, 2009. She also stated that she
disputed that debt with the credit bureaus. Applicant noted that she was not sure why
the debts 1.p-1.r are listed as three accounts. As to SOR debts 1.c-1.t, no evidence has
been provided to support Applicant’s assertions, especially when she claims a debt is
paid. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
Applicant’s net monthly income is about $1,698. Her net remainder is -$170. She
has no savings. Applicant did not list any financial counseling or use of a budget. There
is no record of use of a credit counseling organization. 
When Applicant completed her February 26, 2013 e-QIP, she answered “No” to
Section 26 - Financial Record concerning any “delinquency involving routine accounts.”
She acknowledged in her 2013 interview that she knew that she had accounts that were
in collection or charged-off. She also noted a default on an auto loan. When confronted
with a list of the collection accounts that she did not disclose on the e-QIP, she
admitted that she did not include them. One reason given was that they were so old
that she did not think about them. She deliberately failed to disclose the information.
      Policies   
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
4
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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish her delinquent debts and
federal and state tax debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against her and mitigate
trustworthiness concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” An unpaid debt is a
continuous course of conduct for the purposes of DOHA adjudications. See, ISCR Case
No. 10-11083 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2012). Applicant still has unresolved delinquent
debt that she intends to pay, but has not provided documentation to support her
assertion. She has not provided sufficient documentation that other than the Federal
and state tax obligations, any accounts are paid or are in a repayment plan. The
delinquent obligations remain. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(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) does not
apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) partially applies. Applicant provided
information concerning  unemployment and tax problem that caused financial difficulties
beyond her control. She has been addressing the IRS tax debt and the state tax
5
obligation and has acted responsibly in that matter. However, she still has a large
unresolved amount of debt that she has not provided evidence that she has resolved or
is in the process of resolving them. In response to the FORM, Applicant did not  present
new information presenting more documentation or an update on the status of her
debts.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies. Applicant has been paying her tax
debts.  She did not present evidence that she received financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(c)
(the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem) does not apply.
She has not addressed the other debts in a timely manner. Consequently, I find that
there are not clear indications that her financial problems are being resolved and are
under control. 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the trustworthiness concern for personal conduct:
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
[sensitive] information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the [public trustworthiness] process or any
other failure to cooperate with the [trustworthiness] process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and
may be disqualifying:
(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 qualification, award benefits or status, determine public trust
positions eligibility,  or award fiduciary responsibilities.
Applicant did not disclose relevant information on her 2013 application
concerning delinquent accounts in Section 26 Financial Records. Although she listed
information concerning her federal and state tax obligations, she did not disclose any
routine delinquent accounts. She admitted that she did not disclose the information,
but in her 2013 interview she admitted that she knew about them but thought the
accounts were too “old.” She did not provide a reasonable explanation especially since
she admitted them in her Answer. I find that she deliberately failed to disclose
significant information. This affects her judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. AG
¶16(a) is applicable. 
After considering the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17, I find that none of
them apply.
6
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a position of trust by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the 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
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 position
of trust  must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the ultimate burden
of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a public trust position. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person
factors. Applicant is 48 years old. She  has worked for her current employer since
2013. With the exception of documented unemployment in June 2011 until December
2012, she has worked in the field for many years. She has  been making payments to
the IRS. She claims that many of the debts are due to unemployment and an inability
to pay the debts. However, she has not shown that she has addressed the majority of
the delinquent debts. She has paid the state tax obligation.  
Applicant disclosed her tax obligations on her 2013 application, but she failed to
disclose any routine delinquent accounts in response to Section 26. She knew that she
had delinquents accounts and admitted as much in her Answer. When confronted
during an interview, she noted that she did not list the accounts because they were too
“old.” She admitted that she deliberately failed to disclose significant information.  
Because Applicant chose to have this matter handled without a hearing, I am
unable to evaluate her demeanor or credibility. In relying on the written record, she
failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to supplement the record with
relevant and material facts regarding her circumstances, articulate her position, and
fully mitigate the financial considerations concerns.  
The clearly consistent standard indicates that trustworthiness determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials. A denial of her trustworthiness does not
necessarily indicate anything adverse about Applicant’s character or loyalty. It means
that the individual has presented insufficient mitigation to meet the strict standards
controlling access to sensitive information. 
7
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.t: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is  not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a position of public trust.
Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge