Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-5.1
DoD conducts trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems2
Positions defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (Regulation), dated January 1987
pursuant to 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 for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                               
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXX, Xxxxxx Xxxxx )       ADP Case No. 14-00047
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust1
position.
On 24 February 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F,
Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision2
without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in
this case closed 3 October 2015, the day Applicant’s response to the FORM was due.
Applicant’s clearance application (Item 4) is a pre-employment application, meaning that her employment is3
conditioned on her obtaining her clearance.
2
Applicant provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 1
December 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. She is a 34-year-old customer
service representative sponsored for a public trust position by a defense contractor
since September 2013.  She is the never-married mother of two sons, born in June3
2006 and April 2010. Her September 2013 clearance application states that she was
unemployed from November 2012 to September 2013 and August to October 2011.
She was employed part time from June 2007 to May 2011. She has not previously had
a trustworthiness determination. 
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 3-5) substantiate, and Applicant
admits 29 delinquent debts totaling over $13,000. The debts comprise 17 delinquent
medical accounts totaling about $4,300, incurred between 1999 and 2010, and 12
delinquent consumer credit accounts totaling nearly $8,900. 
During her October 2013 interview with a Government investigator (Item 5),
Applicant attributed her debts to periods of reduced working hours, spans of maternity
leave, and short spans of unemployment. Applicant disclosed 12 of the SOR debts on
her clearance application (Item 3), and acknowledged all the SOR debts during her
subject interview. Applicant told the investigator that she had contacted a debt solution
company, but had not made any decision about whether to retain their services. She
has not made any documented efforts to resolve these debts.
Applicant provided no budget or personal financial statement indicating her
family’s financial situation. She has not documented any credit or financial counseling.
She provided no work or character references, or evidence of civic or community
involvement. 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to sensitive information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶ 19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.5
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is unlikely to recur.
¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.
¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control.
¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.9
3
Trustworthiness decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s public trust position. The
Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the
SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
Government’s case.  Because no one has a right to a public trust position, the applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to sensitive information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. While Applicant’s financial difficulties
may be reasonably attributable to her periods of unemployment and underemployment,
she submitted no information to show she acted responsibly under the circumstances.
She documented no efforts to resolve her debts, and did not provide a proposed plan to
address them.  She has apparently been employed full time since September 2013, but5
has done nothing to resolve her debts.
Applicant meets only one of the mitigating factors for financial considerations.
Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  While her periods of6
unemployment and underemployment may be circumstances beyond her control, she
has documented no efforts dealing with the debts alleged in the SOR, or documenting
any efforts to resolve them.  In addition, there is no evidence that she has sought credit7
counseling or otherwise brought the problem under control.  There is no documentary8
evidence of any good-faith effort to satisfy the debts alleged in the SOR.  Finally, given9
her unwillingness to seek or use financial counseling, there is nothing in the record to
suggest that Applicant will put her financial problems behind her. Moreover, there is
4
insufficient evidence to support a favorable whole person analysis. I conclude Guideline
F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-cc: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue eligibility for a public trust
position for Applicant. Eligibility for a public trust position denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge