1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ADP Case No. 13-01366
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 7, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
On February 5, 2014, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive
5220.6, the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness
concerns under Guidelines F and E for Applicant. (Item 1.) The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; DoD 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 after
September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant replied to the SOR in writing (Response) sometime after February 5,
2014, and she requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a
hearing. (Item 3.) On July 9, 2014, Department Counsel issued the Department's written
case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to
Applicant. In the FORM, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits.
(Items 1-8.) Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. There is no written receipt from Applicant in the
file. Department Counsel corresponded with Applicant by telephone and email on
Directive, “Additional Procedural Guidance,” ¶¶ E3.1.7, and E3.1.10.1
2
January 14, 2015, concerning the lack of receipt. Applicant stated in an email, “I . . .
received another package of Documents in regard to the case in about July 2014, again
I had them returned within the requested period of time.” In another email of that same
date she states, “I do not believe I have anything to add to this case.” Based on the
available evidence I find that Applicant has had more than 30 days since receipt of the
FORM and has elected not to submit any additional information.  The case was1
assigned to this Administrative Judge on February 10, 2015. Based upon a review of
the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility to occupy a sensitive position is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 37 years old. She is employed by a healthcare provider, and she
seeks access to sensitive information in connection with her employment.
Paragraph 1 - Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for access
because she has a history of financial irresponsibility, which shows poor self-control,
lack of judgment, or untrustworthiness.
The SOR lists 23 delinquent debts and judgments, totaling approximately
$61,336. Applicant admitted all of the allegations under this paragraph except for 1.v.
Those admissions are findings of fact. Regarding 1.v she says it is a duplicate of 1.u,
which I deem a denial of that allegation.
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e of the SOR are judgments against Applicant. The
existence and amounts of the judgments are supported by credit reports dated October
2, 2013; and July 8, 2014; and a state judgment and liens filings report. (Items 5, 6, and
7.)
Subparagraphs 1.f through 1.w of the SOR are delinquent debts. The existence
and amount of the debts are supported by the same credit reports. (Items 5, and 6.)
With regard to all the admitted debts, Applicant failed to supply any evidence
concerning responsibility for the debts, payments made, or the existence of payment
arrangements. With regards to 1.v, it is a debt for the same amount as 1.u, $111. Both
are medical debts. Together with Applicant’s statement that they are the same debt,
Government was put on notice that there was a factual issue with this debt. Under these
circumstances, an entry in a credit report is not sufficient to support a finding that 1.v is
a separate debt of Applicant’s. With the exception of 1.v being a duplicate allegation, I
find that all of these debts have not been resolved.
3
Paragraph 2 - Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she engaged in conduct showing questionable judgment, lack of
candor, or dishonesty. Applicant admitted allegation 2.c, which is a finding of fact. Her
responses are deemed denials of the other two allegations.
2.a. Applicant was arrested on May 14, 2004, for several offenses related to use
and possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia. She was sentenced to a six month
diversion program and fined. The FBI report, and a statement in Applicant’s Response,
also show that she received a “conditional discharge.” (Item 8.)
2.b. Applicant filled out an e-QIP on September 3, 2013. She was asked under
“Section 22, Police Record: Have you EVER been charged with an offense involving
alcohol or drugs?” (Item 4.) (Emphasis in original.) Applicant answered, “No.” This was
a false answer to a relevant question concerning her criminal drug use. In her Response
Applicant states, “I miss read [sic] the question.” She does not specify how she misread
the question. However, since the question is clear and direct, her explanation is not
persuasive.
2.c. Section 26 of the same questionnaire asks, “In the past seven (7) years,
have you had a judgment entered against you; defaulted on any type of loan; had bills
or debts turned over to a collection agency; had any account or credit card suspended,
charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed; have you been over 120 days
delinquent on any debt; [or] currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt?” She said,
“No,” which was a false answer to a relevant question concerning her financial situation.
Applicant admitted this allegation. 
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of her professional
performance, the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect
to handling sensitive information. She submitted no character references or other
evidence tending to establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable
to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have
her case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for access to a sensitive position, the
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, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to a sensitive position.
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 AG ¶ 2(a) describing the adjudicative process. The administrative
4
judge’s over-arching 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 [a
sensitive position] 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable access
decision. 
A person who seeks access to a sensitive position 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 that 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
sensitive information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty
of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 - Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness 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
5
protect [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns
and could potentially apply in this case. Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise trustworthiness concerns. I find that both of
these disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has
established that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt, which she has been
unable or unwilling to pay.
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness concerns from
financial difficulties. AG ¶ 20(a) states it may be mitigating when the behavior happened
so long ago, was infrequent, or is unlikely to recur. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be
mitigating where, “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.” There is no evidence that Applicant’s
personal situation fits these mitigating conditions.
Since there is no evidence that Applicant has undertaken any kind of counseling
to better manage her finances, I do not find that AG ¶  20(c) is applicable. Additionally, I
do not find that AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has not “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Finally, I do not find any
other mitigating condition applies to this case since no evidence was introduced to
establish that Applicant’s current financial status is stable and that she is able to resolve
her debts. Therefore, I find Guideline F against Applicant.
Paragraph 2 - Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The trustworthiness concern relating to Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty or unwillingness to comply with rules or regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide
truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any
other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
I have examined the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and especially
considered the following:  
(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
6
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information; and
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s
personal, professional, or community standing.
The following mitigating condition under AG ¶ 17 may apply to the facts of this
case:
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Applicant’s falsifications of her e-QIP occurred about a year before the record
closed. As stated, she admitted falsifying the question about her financial situation. In
addition, the allegation in 2.a might have been mitigated by the time since the event
happened. However, since she is found to have falsified her e-QIP about that offense, it
still might create a vulnerability. The dearth of mitigating information of any type
precludes a finding that she is a credible person. Paragraph 2 is found against
Applicant.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position by considering the totality of the
Applicant’s conduct and all the 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.
7
Under AG ¶ 2 (c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility to
occupy a sensitive position 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
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on the lack of evidence to
establish that Applicant has made any attempt to resolve the past-due debts listed on
the SOR, combined with the falsifications on her e-QIP, I find that the record evidence
leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and
suitability for access to sensitive information, under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns
under the whole-person concept.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.u: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.c 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 eligibility to occupy a
designated ADP I/II/III sensitive position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is
denied.
                                              
Wilford H. Ross
Administrative Judge