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. 14-04992
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On December 17, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing trustworthiness concerns arising under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations). 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 May 8, 2015.  Applicant received the FORM on May 15, 2015.1
She did not submit additional information for the record. I received the case assignment
on July 13, 2015. 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.
In the interview Applicant mentioned a son and a daughter. It is not clear from the record which is accurate.      2
2
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted three allegations under Guideline
F, and denied two allegations  with explanations.  (Item 2) 
Applicant is 33 years old. She is employed with a health insurance company.
Applicant obtained an undergraduate degree in 2005. She continued her education at
another university until 2012.  She is married and has one child.  (Item 3) She has been2
employed with her current employer since September 2013. This is her first application
for a position of trust, which she completed on August 13, 2013. (Item 3) 
 The SOR alleges five delinquent debts totaling approximately $55,000. These
debts include charged-off accounts, collection accounts, a judgment, and student loans.
(Item 1) Credit reports confirm the debts. (Items 5 and 6) The 2012 judgment in 1.c for
$1,388 was paid in June 2014. (Item 4)
Applicant explained in her Answer that she has was unemployed from May 2004
until February 2009. During that time she attended college and was supported by her
husband. She noted that she is striving to achieve a better credit rating, and she knows
there is room for improvement. She states that at her current salary, it is not within her
means to pay on her debts. (Item 2)
The student loan collection account in SOR 1.a is approximately $30,266. She
admitted this debt and submitted documentation that her wages were garnished in
2014. The evidence shows that from October 2014 through December 2014, a total
amount of $772.34 was paid. The account has been in collection since 2010.
In 2013, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that she also has
another child. She worked about 20 hours a week from 2009 until 2012, before taking
the current position. (Item 7) During the interview she was confronted with the various
student loans in collection. She noted that she would try to set up payments with the
creditors. The record does not reflect that she had addressed those accounts.   
 
As to the remaining three 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. She
claimed that she settled the account in 1.d, but there is no clear documentation to
support this claim. She intends to consolidate her student loans. She hopes that in the
next year she can begin to address the other accounts. 
The record shows that Applicant’s annual salary is about $30,900. Applicant did
not list any financial counseling or use of a budget. There is no record of use of a credit
counseling organization. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
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 a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
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 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 three accounts are paid or are
in a repayment plan. The delinquent obligations remain. One account is being paid by
garnishment, it is not clear if that was voluntary or involuntary. 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) does not apply. Applicant listed
information concerning unemployment from 2004 until 2009 when she was attending
college. She attended college and was supported by her husband. She did not
address any of the delinquent debts until she received the SOR. She has every
intention to pay her debts, but to date has not provided documentation that she has
addressed three of them. One account is being paid by garnishment.  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. She did not act responsibly. 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 settled one debt in
2014. She has a garnishment but it is not clear whether it is voluntary. This occurred
when her public trust investigation began. She did not present evidence that she
received financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving
5
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. 
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 33 years old. She  has worked for her current employer since
2013.  She did not provide a nexus to show that this was a circumstance beyond her
control, nor that she acted responsibly. She has not taken sufficient steps to mitigate
the concern. She has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial
considerations 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. 
6
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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d-1.e: 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  a position of public trust is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge