1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 12-11343
                    )
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that
Applicant’s eligibility to occupy a public trust position is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF
85P) on June 5, 2012. The Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications
Facility, (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations on March 14, 2015. 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 For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
(AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
In a recent email, Applicant advised that her employment ended on August 18, 2015. HE 1.2
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 17-20.3
GE 1; Tr.14-17.4
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on March 24, 2015.  She answered
the SOR in writing on April 1, 2015, and she requested a hearing before an
administrative judge with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on May 28, 2015, and I received the
case assignment on June 8, 2015. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 25, 2015,
and I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 15, 2015. The Government offered
five exhibits (GE), 1 through 5, which were received, marked, and admitted into
evidence without objection. Applicant testified. Applicant did not submit any exhibits.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 23, 2015. I held the record
open until August 17, 2015, for the submission of additional matters. Applicant did not
submit any documentation. The record closed on August 17, 2015. Applicant provided a
post-hearing email, which is marked as hearing exhibit (HE) 1.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b,
1.f, 1.g, 1.i, and 1.n - 1.s of the SOR, with explanations. She denied the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c - 1.e, and 1.j - 1.m of the SOR.  She also provided additional1
information to support her request for eligibility for a public trust position.  
Applicant, who is 25 years old, works as a billing and enrollment specialist for a
DOD contractor. She began working for her employer in May 2012.  She worked in a2
temporary position from March 2012 until May 2012 after being unemployed for three
months.  In the late summer and fall of 2011, she worked several temporary positions,
with some short periods of unemployment, after she was terminated from her job of
eight months in the communications industry. Applicant and her family moved from
State A to State B. She experienced a short time of unemployment after her move.3
Applicant graduated from high school, and she attended college for about two
years. She is certified as a medical assistant. Applicant is single and the mother of a 15-
month-old son. She lives with her mother.4
Tr. 20-23.5
Tr. 23-26.6
Tr. 27, 30.7
Tr. 27-41.8
3
Applicant earns $14.17 an hour for a total monthly gross income of $2,267. Her
net monthly income totals approximately $1,980. Her monthly expenses include $500
for rent, $100 for utilities, $360 for a car payment, $90 for a cell phone, $85 for car
insurance, $120 for gasoline, $420 for child care, $150 for food, and $50 for student
loan debt. Her monthly expenses total approximately $1,875, leaving approximately
$105 for debt payment.5
The SOR identifies three unpaid education loans (1.a - $3,302, 1.g - $751, and
1.p - $1,684), which total $5,737. Applicant indicated that she was paying $50 a month
on her education loans and had been since late 2013. She also stated that all her
education loans were being consolidated. She did not provide any documentation from
the Department of Education, its collection agent, or her banking account showing her
payments. Likewise, she did not provide documentation from the Department of
Education showing the consolidation of her loans.6
The SOR lists six medical bills (1.e - $780, 1.h - $272, 1.k - $175, 1.l - $175, 1.m
- $33, and 1.n - $2,211) totaling $3,646. Applicant advised that she had medical
insurance through her employer and the state for several years and that these bills
should have been paid. She also acknowledged that she sought medical treatment at
an emergency room in 2011 when she did not have medical insurance. She has not
taken any steps to resolve these debts or have them resubmitted to her insurance
company for payment.7
Finally, the SOR lists ten unpaid, collection debts (1.b - $1,833, 1,c - $1,591, 1.d
- $809, 1.f - $757, 1.i - $266, 1.j - $212, 1.o - $9,328, 1.q - $1,202, 1.r - -$321, and 1.s -
$91) totaling $16,410. At the hearing, the parties agreed that allegations 1.c and 1.q are
the same, reducing the total debt by $1,202. Applicant has not provided documentation
showing that she paid these bills, that she disputed the debts she denied, or otherwise
taken steps to resolve her debts.8
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  
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 national interests. 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
4
Defense contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in the
Directive before any final unfavorable access determination may be made.   
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the
administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AG.
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 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. 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 to obtain 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.
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
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
5
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns.
Under AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying. Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@
may raise security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant unpaid debts over a six-
year period of time. She has been unable to pay any of the debts, which total almost
$25,000. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions,
requiring a closer examination.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate trustorthiness concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a)
through ¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(b) 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;
and
(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.
Applicant experienced several short periods of unemployment, which impacted
her ability to pay her monthly expenses, making AG ¶ 20(b) potentially applicable as
unemployment is a factor beyond her control. However, she has taken no steps to
resolve any of her debts, thus the second part of this mitigating condition, acting
responsibly under the circumstances, is not established, making the mitigating condition
not applicable.
Applicant advised that she is paying her student loans, but she failed to provide
documentation, such as a statement from the creditor or Department of Education or a
copy of her bank statement, showing her payments. Thus, AG ¶ 20(c) cannot be applied
to her education loans.
After reviewing the remaining mitigating conditions, I have concluded that none
apply. Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns based on her finances.
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): 
6
(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) 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 public
trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a trustworthiness determination requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors,
both favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a trustworthiness
concern is established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position should not be made as punishment for
specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of
record to decide if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate
trustworthiness concern.
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
7
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
has experienced short periods of unemployment, which impacted her ability to pay her
bills. Although requested, Applicant has not provided any documentation showing
payments on her education loans or her disputes of unknown debts. She has not
provided documentation showing any action to resolve her significant debts. She lacks
the resources to pay most of her debts, but could resolve her smaller debts one at a
time. She had no plan to pay her debts, except possibly her education loans. She has
failed to carry her burden of proof in mitigation. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness determination. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising from her
finances under Guideline F.
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.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.r-1.s: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with interest of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
public trust position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge