1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 15-02284 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, eligibility for a public trust position is denied. 
Applicant did not present sufficient information to mitigate financial trustworthiness 
concerns. 
  
On November 2, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a public trust position required 
for potential employment with a defense contractor. (Item 3) Applicant was interviewed 
by a security investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on January 
12, 2013. (Item 6) After reviewing the results of the OPM investigation, the Department 
of Defense (DOD) could not make the preliminary affirmative findings required to grant 
Applicant access to sensitive information. On October 27, 2015, DOD issued Applicant 
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for financial trustworthiness concerns under Guideline 
F. (Item 1) The action was taken under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended; Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, 
dated Jan. 1987, as amended (Regulation); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006.  
 
2 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 23, 2015. She admitted the 
two financial allegations with a detailed explanation. Applicant requested a decision on 
the record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on December 
15, 2015. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on December 
21, 2015, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to 
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant did not submit any 
information in response to the FORM. I was assigned the case on May 5, 2016.  
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject 
Interview with an OPM investigator (Item 6) was not authenticated and could not be 
considered over her objection. She was further advised that she could make any 
corrections, additions, or deletions to the summary to make it clear and accurate, and 
could object to the admission of the summary as not authenticated by a Government 
witness. She was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the summary, 
the Administrative Judge could determine that she waived any objection to the 
admissibility of the Personnel Subject Interview summary. Applicant did not respond to 
the FORM, so she did not raise any objection to consideration of the Personal Subject 
Interview. Since there is no objection by Applicant, I will consider information in the 
Personal Subject Interview in my decision.  
 
 The SOR was erroneously labeled as a Request for a Security Clearance. 
Applicant is seeking a Public Trust Position. Department Counsel moved to amend the 
SOR to correctly reflect that Applicant is seeking eligibility for a Public Trust Position. 
The motion is granted and the SOR is amended as requested. 
  
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 48-years-old. She has an associate’s degree awarded in 2003, and a 
bachelor’s degree awarded in 2012. She is presently employed as a hotel clerk but is 
seeking a trustworthiness position to be employed as a health care administrator for a 
defense contractor. Applicant has been married since July 1990 and has two college 
age children. (Item 3, e-QIP, dated November 2, 2012; Item 6, Personal Subject 
Interview, dated January 12, 2013)  
 
 The SOR alleges, and credit reports (Item 4, Credit Report, dated February 23, 
2015; Item 5, Credit Report, dated December 12, 2012) confirm that Applicant has two 
mortgage debts of $57,668 with a balance of $143,500 (SOR 1.a), and a charged off 
mortgage debt of $34,880. (SOR 1.b) These two debts are the only delinquent debts 
listed on Applicant’s credit reports and are the result of a foreclosure on the same 
house.  
 
 Applicant and her husband purchased a house using a first and second 
mortgage in 2006. The purchase was made as the housing financial crises started. The 
3 
 
amount of the mortgages was approximately $190,000. The family lived in the house 
until approximately 2008 when they moved to be closer to their daughters’ high school. 
The housing market deteriorated and the value of the house fell to only $130,000. They 
were unable to sell the house but rented it for four years. They continued to work with 
the mortgage holders to attempt to sell the house in the bad housing market. The 
primary mortgage holder agreed to a short sale, but the second mortgage holder would 
not agree to a short sale. The mortgage could not be refinanced and the family could 
not qualify for Government mortgage relief programs because the house was no longer 
their primary residence. In 2012, Applicant’s husband’s job was moved to another state. 
Applicant and her husband tried to make payment arrangements with the two mortgage 
companies. The holder of the primary mortgage was willing to arrange a payment plan 
but the holder of the smaller second mortgage was unwilling to cooperate. Applicant 
and her husband made a decision in 2012 to let the house go to foreclosure. 
 
 Applicant noted that her families’ financial health is solid. Her husband makes 
approximately $125,000 per year, and she makes approximately $30,000 per year. The 
couple also has a part-time business that grosses approximately $20,000 per year. 
They live within their means and pay all of their bills on time. Their credit scores are in 
the high 700s and low 800s. The only delinquency in their credit history is the 
foreclosure on their original house. They made a difficult and conscious decision to walk 
away from the house and the mortgage. (Item 2, Response to SOR, dated November 
23, 2015) 
 
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 common sense 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. 
 
4 
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
There is a trustworthiness concern for a failure or inability to live within one=s 
means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations indicating 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 overextended is at risk of having to engage 
in illegal acts to generate funds (AG ¶ 18). Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligation to 
protect 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 under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a public trust position. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations.  
 
5 
 
 Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant has mortgage debt on the families’ 
original house that has not been satisfied. Applicant and her husband decided that they 
would not attempt to satisfy the two mortgages since the value of the house was less 
than the amount of the mortgage. One of the mortgage companies would not cooperate 
in arranging more favorable payment terms. Since at least 2012, Applicant has not 
indicated any effort to contact the mortgage holders to determine the amount and status 
of the mortgage debts. They have essentially walked away from the debt. Applicant’s 
mortgage debt is established by credit reports and Applicant’s admissions. The 
mortgage debts pose a trustworthiness concern raising Financial Consideration 
Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG 
¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). The facts raise unwillingness and 
not inability to satisfy the mortgage debts.   
 
 I considered the following Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under 
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;  
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or 
separations) 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; and 
 
(d) the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant incurred delinquent mortgage 
debt when the mortgage market collapses, and the families’ house was worth less than 
the amount of the mortgage. The delinquent mortgages are a continuous course of debt 
and thus current. Applicant attempted to work with the creditors to sell the house but 
was not successful. The conditions that caused the mortgage debts were unusual, 
beyond her control, and unlikely to recur. When Applicant and her husband moved out 
of the state for her husband’s new job, they were still responsible for the mortgages. 
She and her husband made a conscious decision to abandon the house and mortgage 
and let it go to foreclosure by the bank. Since then, Applicant has not made any further 
inquiries on the house or mortgages. She does not know and cannot provide the current 
status of the debts. She does not know if the house had been foreclosed and the status 
6 
 
of the mortgage debts. Since she does not know the status of the house or debts, she 
cannot present any plans to pay the debt.  
 
 Applicant has failed to establish the second requirement of the mitigating 
conditions. She has not established that she acted reasonably and responsibly under 
the circumstances. She presented no information on payment of any debts, attempts to 
contact creditors, or any plans to resolve the debts. There is no indication that her 
financial problems associated with the mortgages are being resolved and are under 
control.  
 
 Applicant has not established a good-faith effort to pay her mortgage debts. 
Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and 
adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of handling debts is needed. 
Applicant must establish a meaningful track record of debt payment. Applicant must 
establish that she has a reasonable plan to resolve financial problems and has taken 
significant action to implement that plan. Applicant did not present a plan to resolve her 
financial issues. She did not show a meaningful track record of debt payments. 
Applicant’s failure to pay her debts shows that she has not acted reasonably and 
honestly with regard to her financial duties and obligations. She is not managing her 
personal financial obligations responsibly. Since she is not managing her finances 
reasonably and responsibly, she may not manage and safeguard sensitive information 
responsibly. Based on all of the financial information, I conclude that Applicant has not 
mitigated trustworthiness concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s trustworthiness eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct 
and all relevant circumstances. An 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 a trustworthiness 
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 is required to show that 
7 
 
she has a plan to resolve her financial problems and that she has taken significant 
action to implement that plan.  
 
 Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her mortgage debts. She has not 
presented sufficient information to establish that she acted reasonably and responsibly 
with regard to the mortgage. Applicant may not have a mortgage debt. Since she has 
not made any inquires on the debt, the status remains unknown. Her failure to inquire 
about the mortgage is unreasonable and irresponsible. Overall, the record evidence 
leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, 
trustworthiness, and eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness clearance. For all 
these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated trustworthiness concerns 
arising under the financial considerations guideline. Eligibility for a trustworthiness 
position is denied. 
 
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.b:    Against Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge