The Government submitted seven items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ADP Case No. 14-02852
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On July 23, 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 October 17, 2014.  Applicant received the FORM on October1
29, 2014. She submitted additional information for the record. I received the case
assignment on November 21, 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.o with explanations. She also admitted the allegations of falsification under
Guideline E. (Item 4) 
Applicant is 30 years old. She is a personal care giver assistant  employed with a
home health care company. Applicant graduated from high school in June 2001. (Item
4) Applicant is single and has one child. (Item 4) She has been employed with her
current employer since December 2012. This is her first application for a position of
trust, which she completed on February 20, 2013. (Item 5) 
 The SOR alleges 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $34,000. These
debts include charged-off accounts, collection accounts, involuntary repossession of a
vehicle. (Item 1) Credit reports confirm the debts. (Items 5 and 6) 
Applicant explained in her Answer that she has had multiple periods of
unemployment. The record reflects that she was unemployed from August 2011 until
November 2011; September 2012 until December 2012. She noted that one debt (SOR
1.f) has been settled, but she did not provide any proof. Applicant maintains that her
medical debts are the result of not having health insurance coverage. 
In 2013, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that she contacted
several collection agencies and intends to pay her bills through a repayment plan. She
stated that her goal was to have things in payment status by 2013. Her student loans
are in deferment.  
 
As to the remaining SOR debts, Applicant did not provide any documentation to
support that she has paid any accounts or is in a repayment plan for them. She
admitted the debts, but thought that some may be duplicate accounts. 
The record does not provide any personal financial information. 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 5, 2013 e-QIP, she answered “Yes” to
Section 26 - Financial Record concerning any “delinquency over 120 days.” She listed
various accounts and noted the amounts and what she planned to do to resolve them.
At the bottom of the summary section she answered “NO” to any delinquent 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. She put the government on notice that she had many delinquent accounts on her
security clearance application. She told the investigator that she had not noticed that
she checked the summary box incorrectly. This is reasonable in terms of the many
accounts that she listed as delinquent in Section 26.
 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
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
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:
4
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 her
credit reports confirm the 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  documentation that  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 listed
information concerning  unemployment that caused financial difficulties beyond her
control. She has every intention to pay her debts, but to date has not provided any
documentation that she has addressed any of them. She 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 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. 
5
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 disclosed information about many delinquent accounts in Section 26
Financial Records on her application for a public trust position. Although she did not
check the box at the very end of the section (summary) with regard to delinquent debts
more than 120 days overdue, she had checked the “Yes” box in the beginning of the
section. She also disclosed various accounts on the security clearance application. In
her 2013 interview she admitted that she knew about her accounts. I find that she did
not falsify her security clearance application or fail to disclose significant information.
AG ¶16(a) is not applicable. 
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
6
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 30 years old. She  has worked for her current employer since
2012. With the exception of documented unemployment in August 2011 to November
2011 and September 2012 to December 2012, she has been employed. However, she
has not shown that she has addressed the majority of the delinquent debts.  She has
not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
Applicant disclosed her delinquent accounts on her security clearance
application in response to Section 26. She  has mitigated the security concerns under
the personal conduct guideline. 
Because Applicant chose to have this matter handled without a hearing, I am
unable to evaluate her 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. 
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.o: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-b: For Applicant
7
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 a position of public trust is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge