The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ADP Case No. 12-07196
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On January 6, 2015, 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 July 23, 2015.  Applicant received the FORM on August 17,1
2015. He did not submit additional information for the record. I received the case
assignment on December 1, 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.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted allegations under Guideline F, ¶¶
1.a-1.w with explanations. He also provided additional information. 
Applicant is 30 years old. He is a transaction process lead employee with an
insurance company. Applicant graduated from high school in June 2003. (Item 3)
Applicant never married and has no children. (Item 3) He has been employed with his
current employer since 2011. This is his first application for a position of trust, which he
completed on March 15, 2012. (Item 3) 
 The SOR alleges 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,944. These
debts include charged-off accounts, medical collection accounts, and student loans.
(Item 1) Credit reports confirm the debts. (Items 4, 5, and 6) 
Applicant explained in his SOR Answer that he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
October 2014. (Item 2) The debts were discharged in February 2015. (Item 4) He
acknowledged that bankruptcy is not the preferred method of reconciliation for debt,
and he wanted to pay his debts. However, he noted that his income exceeded his
expenses. He felt that this was the only viable means to “clean up his credit report” in a
timely manner. (Item 2) He completed the requisite  financial counseling. He believes
he has a new set of skills that will enable him to be more financially responsible.
In 2012, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that he has been
gainfully employed since 2008. The delinquent debts stem from as early as 2007. There
is no information in the record that Applicant made any payments or had a plan to
resolve the debts before the filing of bankruptcy. Applicant did not present any
information to explain the specific cause of the delinquent debts. He did not present a
personal financial statement. The majority of the SOR debts are included in the
bankruptcy.  Applicant stated that the debts in 1.r ($4,186) and 1.t ($2,747) for student
loans were paid in full in 2012 with a tax refund.  He provided a sheet that showed they
presently have a zero balance. (Answer to SOR)
Applicant noted that he has been in a supervisory position for three years. He
considers himself a reliable and trustworthy individual who can be trusted with sensitive
information. (Item 2) 
 
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.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
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 a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
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:
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.
4
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish his delinquent debts and his
credit reports confirm the debts. He filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014, and the
debts were discharged in 2015. 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 him 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 filed for chapter 7
bankruptcy in 2014 and the debts were discharged in 2015. This is a legitimate means
of resolving debts, but the debts were recently discharged. 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 provided no
explanation other than his expenses exceeded his income. He has been employed
since 2008. He had every intention to pay his debts. He filed for bankruptcy and his
debts were discharged in 2015. In response to the FORM, Applicant did not  present
new information regarding the cause of the delinquent debts.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies. Applicant paid two student loans.
He received the requisite financial counseling when he filed for bankruptcy. AG ¶ 20(c)
(the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem) does not apply.
The bankruptcy filing is a legal means of resolving debts, but there is no information in
the record that Applicant tried to resolve some of the smaller debts before the 2014.
Consequently, I find that  there are not clear indications that his 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
5
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 30 years old. He  has worked for his current employer since 2011.
He has been employed since 2008. He did not provide a specific explanation for his
delinquent debts, other than his writing that expenses exceeded his income. He stated
that he wanted to pay his debts. He filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014 and the
debts were discharged in 2015. This is a legitimate way to resolve debts. He paid his
two student loans. However, he has not provided information to show good-faith efforts
to pay some of the smaller debts before filing for bankruptcy in 2014. He has not
demonstrated a track record of financial responsibility and good judgment.  He has not
mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
The clearly consistent standard indicates that trustworthiness determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials. A denial of Applicant’s trustworthiness
does not necessarily indicate anything adverse about his character or loyalty. It means
that the individual has presented insufficient mitigation to meet the strict standards
controlling access to sensitive information. 
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.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.u-1.w: Against Applicant
6
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 access to a position of public trust is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge