1 
 
 
                                                              
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
             
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
------------------------------- )       ADP Case No. 14-03116 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On March 8, 2013, Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On July 30, 2014, the Department of Defense issued 
to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns under 
Guidelines F and E. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
Defense Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987, as 
amended (Regulation); Department of Defense 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 on September 1, 2006.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 14, 2014. Applicant requested 
her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
 
On April 17, 2015, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written case. 
A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), consisting of Items 1-8, was 
provided to the Applicant. She was given the opportunity to file objections and submit 
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant received the file on April 24, 
2015. Applicant did not file a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed that 
would have expired on May 24, 2015.  
 
A letter dated May 26, 2015, by Applicant to the case adjudicator is in the file, 
seeking additional time to submit “necessary information before a decision is made on 
my case.” She wanted to know if she could get the extra time. There is a note on that 
letter from the adjudicator that she left a message for Applicant but never received a 
return phone call. The case was then processed to me for a decision. I reviewed the file 
and contacted the Department Counsel who confirmed Applicant asked for more time to 
submit documents. He gave her until the week of August 10-14, 2015, to submit 
documents. On August 10th she did. He had no objection to the admission of these 
exhibits into the record. I admitted them after marking them as Exhibits A to K.  
 
I received the case assignment on July 23, 2015. Based upon a review of the 
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted the allegations in Paragraph 1 and denied the allegations in 
Paragraph 2. She submitted documents to support her contentions. (Items 1-3)  
 
 Applicant is 62 years old and works for a defense contractor. Applicant has two 
children and is divorced. She retired from one job and could not find jobs that paid her 
what income she wanted, so she moved to another state. She was unemployed after 
her retirement from October 2009 to October 2010, and December 2012 to January 
2013. (Item 4) 
 
 The SOR lists 10 delinquent debts totaling $24,002. Applicant claims she paid 
most of them in 2014 by installment payments or by paying the balance owed, after 
receiving the SOR. Her Answer, consisting of a letter dated August 11, 2014, with 
attachments, claimed she was waiting for zero balance letters from the creditors. There 
is only one such letter in the documents she submitted originally. The earliest date of a 
debt is 2008. Her August 2015 submission consisted of the same August 11, 2014 letter 
with updates of payoff letters for most debts. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6) 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 Applicant’s mortgage was in foreclosure with the past-due amount of $20,319 on 
a loan balance of $175,394 (Subparagraph 1.a). The SOR does not charge Applicant 
with a tax debt on the foreclosure nor do her credit reports include information to that 
effect. However, Applicant submitted documents showing she paid a tax relief service 
various amounts of money totaling $6,500 to work on the tax debt she claims is owed to 
the Internal Revenue Service. The exact status of her mortgage foreclosure and its 
relationship to the purported tax debt is not explained by her. Her latest documents 
show an offer in compromise with the IRS on this debt for $6,808. Any debt to the 
mortgage company is not addressed by the Applicant. If this debt is really owed to the 
IRS, then it is resolved. If it is the mortgage debt on the foreclosure it is unresolved. 
(Items 2, 5, 6; Exhibits A-D) 
 
 Applicant owed a mobile telephone service $1,946 (Subparagraph 1.b). Applicant 
claimed the case was settled for $583.94 and it was be paid by installments of $291.97 
starting in September 2014. She did submit an email from the collection agency dated 
August 6, 2014, stating the terms of the settlement. She paid the settlement amount in 
two installments of $291.97. This debt is resolved. (Items 2, 5, 6; Exhibits A, E) 
 
 Applicant owed a satellite television service $407 (Subparagraph 1.c). She 
claimed in her Answer that the debt would be paid in four payments with the final one in 
November 2014. However, her August 2014 bank statement shows two payments to 
this creditor of $50 and $291.97, totaling $341.97. Her latest submission is a payment in 
full letter from the creditor dated June 11, 2015. This debt is resolved. (Items 2, 5, 6; 
Exhibits A, F) 
 
 Applicant owed a telephone company $257 from 2012 (Subparagraph 1.d). She 
claimed she settled the account for $111.69 paid September 12, 2014. She stated in her 
Answer that a payoff letter would arrive by September 22, 2014. There is a zero balance 
letter dated June 11, 2015, from the collector. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6; 
Exhibits A, G) 
 
 Applicant owed an internet cable company $227 (Subparagraph 1.e). Applicant’s 
Answer claims she paid this debt and expects to receive a zero balance letter. Applicant 
submitted a copy of her bank record showing on August 18, 2014, that $227.04 was 
paid to the cable service provider. Then she sent an email from the creditor showing the 
account was paid in full. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6; Exhibits A, H)  
 
 Applicant owed a debt collector on two accounts the amounts of $197 
(Subparagraph 1.f) and $104 (Subparagraph 1.g) for another cable service provider. 
Applicant’s Answer claims she paid these two accounts. She enclosed zero balance 
letters with her Answer. The letters do not contain amounts paid or the same account 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
number as listed in the SOR. The zero balance letters each have different account 
numbers. However, Applicant did include her August 2014 bank statement showing 
$201.85 was paid on one account and $108.98 paid on another account to this 
collector. Her August 2015 document submission includes the same letters with her 
markings of the amounts paid on each account. These debts are resolved. (Items 1, 2, 
5, 6; Exhibits A, I) 
 
 Applicant owes a bank $59 from 2011 (Subparagraph 1.h). Applicant’s Answer 
claims she agreed to pay the amount and would do so in October 2014 at a bank 
branch. She expected to receive a payoff letter in October 2014. No such letter is 
included with her Answer or subsequently in her August 2015 additional exhibits. That 
document states Applicant is still waiting for a payoff letter.  This minor debt is 
unresolved. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6; Exhibit A) 
 
 Applicant owed another cable television provider $21 since 2009 (Subparagraph 
1.i). Applicant’s banking statement shows $20.93 paid to the provider on August 15, 
2014. Her Answer states she arranged to pay this amount then and awaited a zero 
balance letter. The August 2015 document submission states a zero balance letter is 
attached but it is not. However, this debt is resolved based on her banking statement 
and her August 2015 document. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6) 
 
 Applicant owed a telephone company $465 (Subparagraph 1.i). Her Answer 
asserts she contacted the collection agency and settled the case for $241.72 to be paid 
September 29, 2014. Applicant did not submit any documents to show that amount was 
paid on time. She did submit a IC System letter showing the balance of $241.72 was 
paid since the collector received the debt to collect. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 5, 
6; Exhibits A, K) 
 
 Applicant submitted a response to a Department of Defense Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) adjudicator on October 14, 2014 clarifying her Answer 
to the SOR. She stated also that she “put everything down on my Electronic 
Questionnaire that I could remember at the time I was filling out the form . . .” The SOR 
alleges Applicant did not disclose in Section 26 of the e-QIP that she had debts turned 
over to a collection agency, had a foreclosure, and that she was over 120 days 
delinquent on any debt, when in fact these types of financial problems occurred. With 
the list of delinquent debts and her mortgage problems it is unlikely Applicant did not 
remember and know of those debts, certainly the foreclosure. She deliberately failed to 
disclose the debts on her e-QIP. (Items 1, 2, 5, 6; Exhibit A) 
 
 In the latest document submission Applicant states she did not have her credit 
report with her when she completed the job application. Her timeline for completion of 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
the application was stringent, she stated, and she relied on her memory to list her 
delinquent debts. She also stated she could not remember some accounts and when 
she tried to resolve them she could not find an organization to which she could make 
payment. (Exhibit A) 
  
     Applicant did not submit any documentation that she has participated in credit 
counseling or budget education. She provided no evidence concerning the quality of her 
job performance. 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. 
 
 Department Counsel submitted eight Items in support of the SOR allegations.  
Item 8 is inadmissible. It will not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the 
summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant conducted by an interviewer from the 
Office of Personnel Management on May 14, 2013. Applicant did not adopt it as her 
own statement, or otherwise certify it to be accurate.  Under Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this 
Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating 
witness. In light of Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative. 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I/II/III are classified as “sensitive positions.”  (See 
Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.)  “The standard that must be met for . . . 
assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s 
loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to 
sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” (See 
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence 
and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, indicates trustworthiness 
adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense Security Service 
and Office of Personnel Management.  Department of Defense contractor personnel are 
afforded the right to the procedures contained in the Directive before any final 
unfavorable access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)   
 
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the 
administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AG 
(AG ¶ 2(a)). 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
“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 
[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. 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 
trustworthiness decision.  
A person who seeks access to sensitive information 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 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 (EO) 10865 provides that 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 
 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
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.  
 
The guideline at AG & 19 contains nine disqualifying conditions that could raise 
trustworthiness concerns. From these nine conditions, two conditions are applicable to 
the facts found in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and   
 
(c)  a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 From 2008 to the present, Applicant accumulated 10 delinquent debts, totaling 
$24,002. These were unpaid or unresolved at the start of the trustworthiness 
determination review. These two disqualifying conditions are established. 
 
The guideline in AG ¶ 20 contains six conditions that could mitigate 
trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties. Only two mitigating conditions 
might have partial applicability: 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the 
problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being 
resolved or is under control; and 
 
 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolved. 
 
AG ¶ 20(c) requires financial counseling and/or resolution of the financial 
problems. Applicant has not had any financial counseling so that component is not 
present.  
 
The debts, but for two, are resolved. The first debt regarding Applicant’s 
mortgage foreclosure is not explained by her IRS offer in compromise documents when 
the allegation is that she has a past-due balance on her mortgage. If her debt was 
forgiven and she received a benefit from that action that was taxable income, then the 
IRS compromise offer would be relevant. With no further explanation the current status 
it is unclear. For eight of the ten debts she resolved them and these two mitigating 
conditions apply to them. They do not pertain to the remaining two debts. AG ¶ 20 (d) 
partially applies. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the trustworthiness concern pertaining to 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 
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. 
 
The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action 
or administrative termination of further processing for trustworthiness 
eligibility: 
 
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or 
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting 
with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms 
or releases, and cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation; 
and, 
 
(b) refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful 
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official 
representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness 
determination. 
 
AG ¶ 16 describes a condition 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 qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security 
clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. 
 
Applicant did not disclose her financial delinquencies as alleged in SOR 
Paragraph 2. She did not list her mortgage foreclosure, which must have been present 
in her mind because it resulted in a move from one city and state where that house 
existed, to another city and state, and she then became a renter. The other debts are 
telephone bills and cable television debts, plus a few other debts of uncertain origin. 
Applicant waited so long to pay them that she then claimed she could not remember 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
them or could not contact her creditor to pay them. Prompt debt payments would have 
alleviated that excuse. Also, disclosure of any delinquent debt under “Additional 
Comments” at the end of the e-QIP might have mitigated her failure to be specific in 
Section 26 of the e-QIP. AG ¶ 16(a) is established. 
 
There are seven mitigating conditions listed in Guideline E. None of them apply 
to Applicant’s situation with her debts.   
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant=s eligibility for a trustworthiness determination by considering the totality of the 
applicant=s conduct and all 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 
trustworthiness determination 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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was an adult when she 
incurred the debts. She had not taken any action to resolve all her delinquent debts until 
the SOR was issued. This inaction leaves her vulnerable to pressure, coercion, 
exploitation, or duress based on the magnitude of her financial obligation Applicant 
displayed a lack of good judgment incurring the debts.  Next, she exhibited a continued 
lack of appropriate judgment by failing to make payments on any of her delinquent 
debts during the past seven years until she received the SOR. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or substantial doubts as to 
Applicant=s eligibility and suitability for a position of trust. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the concerns arising under the guideline for 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
Financial Considerations. She did not mitigate the concerns under the guideline for 
Personal Conduct. I conclude the whole-person concept against Applicant.  
 
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 
 
 Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
           Subparagraphs 1.b to 1.g:             For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.h:    Against Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.i:    For Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.j:    For 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 eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
                                               
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge