1 
 
 
 
 
  
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE  
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS and APPEALS 
  
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ADP Case No. 14-05493 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny her 
eligibility for a public trust position to work in the defense industry. Applicant failed to 
mitigate the trustworthiness concerns arising from her finances. Based upon a review of 
the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to sensitive information is 
denied.  
 
History of the Case 
 
 On February 7, 2015, acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD 
Directive,1 the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness 
concerns under financial considerations. DoD adjudicators could not find that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s public trust position.  
 
                                                          
1 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 DoD 
on September 1, 2006. 
2 
 
 
 
 
On March 5, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR and elected to have the matter 
decided without a hearing. Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
Department Counsel (DC) submitted the Government's case in a File of Relevant 
Material (FORM), dated June 26, 2015. The FORM contained six attachments (Items).  
 
On July 13, 2015, Applicant received a copy of the FORM, along with notice of 
her opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
potentially disqualifying conditions. She was informed she could submit any material 
she wished to be considered. Her response was due August 14, 2015. No material was 
received. On October 8, 2015, I was assigned the case.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, she admitted all of the factual allegations. 
When initially interviewed about her delinquent accounts, she indicated she intended to 
take care of the issue by years end. However, the birth of a grandchild in August 2014 
prevented her from having money to address her delinquent obligations. Her 
admissions are incorporated herein. After a thorough review of the pleadings and 
exhibits, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 47-year-old service representative who has worked for a 
healthcare service company since March 2014 and seeks to obtain access to sensitive 
information. (Item 4) Applicant is married and has two daughters ages 30 and 25. In 
2009, her youngest daughter was diagnosed with bipolar schizophrenia disorder. In 
August 2014, her youngest daughter gave birth to Applicant’s grandson. Applicant and 
her daughter were estranged at some point. (Item 4)  
 
The SOR indicates Applicant had delinquent debts of approximately $21,500. In 
March 2014, Applicant had a Personal Subject Interview (PSI) during which her 
delinquent accounts were discussed. Four delinquent SOR debts (SOR 1.a, $66; SOR 
1.b, $168; SOR 1.e, $1,588; and SOR 1.k, $585), which total approximately $2,400. 
(Item 3, 4)  
 
Applicant’s largest debt was the result of a truck repossession. (Item 4) When her 
daughter was diagnosed with bipolar schizophrenia disorder, Applicant and her 
husband decided their number one financial priority was medical care for their daughter 
and used all of their available resources to pay the medical bills. Loan payments were 
not made for four or five months resulting in the truck being repossessed. The truck was 
sold and the creditor demanded $11,774. In her PSI, she stated she does not intend to 
pay this debt because the truck was resold. (Item 4) 
 
During Applicant’s PSI, she recognized some, but not all, of her delinquent 
accounts.  It was her intention, at that time, to contact the creditors and determine the 
validity of the claims.  If the debts were valid, she intended to negotiate a settlement 
agreement and establish a repayment plan. (Item 4) In response to the SOR, she said 
she had no funds to make payment to her creditors due to the expenses incurred 
following the birth of her grandson. (Item 2) 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
Applicant is attempting to obtain custody of her grandson because her daughter 
cannot be left alone with the child. (Item 2) Accompanying her SOR answer, she listed 
all the expenses she has incurred for the child since the child’s birth. (Item 2) Her 
expenses include $652 in monthly child care.  
 
Applicant stated she would like to pay her delinquent accounts, but does not 
have the funds to do so. (Item 2) She asserts she is responsible and trustworthy. She 
also stated she needs her job. 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II 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. 
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. 
 
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.  
 
4 
 
 
 
 
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 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the trustworthiness concerns relating 
to financial problems: 
 
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 classified information. An individual who is financially 
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding sensitive information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect 
of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts as agreed. Absent 
substantial evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a public trust position. An applicant is not required to be debt 
free, but is required to manage her finances to meet her financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial problems starting in 2009. Applicant has 
unresolved delinquent, charged-off, and collection accounts, which total approximately 
$21,500. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” 
and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.  
 
5 
 
 
 
 
 Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
In 2009, Applicant’s daughter was diagnosed with bipolar schizophrenia. At that 
time, Applicant and her husband decided to use all of their available resources to pay 
their daughter’s medical bills. This resulted in their truck being repossessed. In March 
2014, she said she hoped to have her delinquent accounts paid by the end of the year. 
The birth of a grandson, in August 2014, resulted in her having no funds to pay her 
delinquent debts.  
 
None of the mitigating factors for financial considerations extenuate the 
concerns. Applicant’s financial difficulties are both recent and multiple. She has been 
employed with her current employer since March 2014. In March 2014, she was made 
aware of the Government’s concerns about her delinquent debts. She indicated she 
intended to pay her debts, but has not done so. By failing to document the payment of 
delinquent debts she has failed to act responsibly under the circumstances. 
 
 In February 2015, Applicant received the FORM and was informed she could 
submit documentation as to the status of her delinquent accounts. No documents were 
received. Applicant was given sufficient opportunity to address her financial 
delinquencies. Failing to pay the debts casts doubt on her current reliability, 
trustworthiness, and good judgment. She has not acted responsibly in addressing her 
debts. She provided no evidence she has received credit or financial counseling. She 
has not demonstrated that her financial problems are under control or that she has a 
plan to bring them under control. The mitigating conditions listed in AG ¶ 20(c) do not 
apply. There is no showing of a good-faith effort to satisfy debts or a showing that 
6 
 
 
 
 
payments have been made in accord with a repayment agreement. The mitigating 
conditions listed in AG ¶ 20(d) do not apply because Applicant has failed to document 
payment on her delinquent obligations.    
 
In 2009, six years ago, Applicant’s daughter was diagnosed with bipolar 
schizophrenia. In 2014, Applicant’s grandson was born.  These are events beyond her 
control, however, the delinquent obligations, even the two that were less than $100 
each, remain unpaid.  AG & 20(b) does not apply.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance 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 
security clearance 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. Applicant has failed to document 
any payment on her delinquent accounts. She has been aware of the Government’s 
concern about her delinquent debts since her March 2014 interview, which was 
reinforced by the February 2015 SOR, and June 2015 FORM. There is no 
documentation of payment.  
 
In requesting an administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the 
written record. However, she failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to 
supplement the record with relevant and material facts regarding her circumstances and 
facts that would mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. She failed to 
offer evidence of financial counseling or provide documentation regarding her past 
efforts to address her delinquent debt. She failed to provide such information, and by 
relying solely on scant explanation in her response to the SOR, she failed to mitigate 
the trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial problems.  
 
The issue is not simply whether all Applicant’s debts are paid—it is whether her 
financial circumstances raise concerns about eligibility and suitability for a public trust 
position. (See AG & 2 (a)(1).)  
7 
 
 
 
 
 
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot 
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to be eligible for a 
public trust position. The determination of an individual’s eligibility and suitability for a 
public trust position is not a once in a lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the 
factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under Applicant=s 
current circumstances, a public trust position is not recommended. In the future, if 
Applicant has paid her delinquent obligations, established compliance with a repayment 
plan, or otherwise substantially addressed her past-due obligations, she may well 
demonstrate persuasive evidence of her public trust worthiness.  
  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns arising from her 
financial problems.  
 
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, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.n:  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. 
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge