1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 14-06790 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ross Hyams, 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 May 15, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a public trust position with a 
defense agency. (Item 4) Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator from the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on June 24, 2013. (Item 5) 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 July 20, 2015, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for 
financial trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. 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).  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on August 14, 2015. Applicant did not directly admit 
or deny each allegation. However, his explanation of the actions he has taken 
2 
 
concerning his debts is a clear indication of admission of the debts. Applicant requested 
a decision on the record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case 
on October 28, 2015. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on 
December 3, 2015, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit 
material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant timely 
submitted information in response to the FORM on January 29, 2016. (Item 9) I was 
assigned the case of August 11, 2016.  
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject 
Interview with an OPM investigator (Item 4) was not authenticated and could not be 
considered over his objection. He was further advised that he 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. He was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the summary, the 
Administrative Judge could determine that he waived any objection to the admissibility 
of the Personnel Subject Interview summary. Applicant, in his response to the FORM, 
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.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 48 years old. He received a master’s degree in 1996. He has also 
completed some computer certification courses. He married in March 1997 and has two 
children and one stepchild. He was employed from May 2003 until March 2007 as a 
software developer, and from April 2007 until March 2009 as a software engineer. He 
was unemployed from April 2009 until November 2010 and received unemployment 
compensation. He was then a substitute teacher from December 2010 until May 2012. 
He returned to school to pursue a master’s degree and was also employed as a 
research assistant from June 2012 until December 2012. In January 2013, he was 
employed in computer operations by a major computer firm. He is now employed in 
computer operations by a defense agency that is sponsoring him for the public trust 
position. (Item 4, e-QIP, dated May 15, 2013) 
 
 The SOR alleges and credit reports (Item 6, dated June 6, 2013; Item 7, dated 
October 29, 2014; and Item 8, dated September 28, 2015) confirm the following 
delinquent debts for Applicant: a collection account for $4,653 (SOR 1.a); a student loan 
in collection for $1,847 (SOR 1.b); medical accounts either charged off or in collection 
for $399 (SOR 1.c), $296 (SOR 1.d), $266 (SOR 1.e), $210 (SOR 1.g), $122 (SOR 1.i), 
$100 (SOR 1.j), $50 (SOR 1.l), $2,517 (SOR 1.n), $1,252 (SOR 1.o), $695 (SOR 1.q), 
$399 (SOR 1.r), $376 (SOR 1.s), $334 (SOR 1.t), $315 (SOR 1.u), $239 (SOR 1.v), 
$220 (SOR 1.w), $135 (SOR 1.y), $114 (SOR 1.z), and $104 (SOR 1.aa); a utility debt 
in collection for $234 (SOR 1.f), a cable bill in collection for $167 (SOR 1.h); another 
utility bill in collection for $85 (SOR 1.k); a judgment for apartment rent of $1,145 (SOR 
3 
 
1.m); a credit card debt in collection for $820 (SOR 1.p); and a utility debt in collection 
for $169 (SOR 1.x). The total amount of the debt is approximately $17,263. 
 
 In the PSI with the OPM investigator, Applicant reported that he defaulted on a 
credit card and a hospital bill, his bills have gone to collection, and he had a credit card 
cancelled or charged off for failure to pay the credit card debt. The 19 medical debts 
were the result of Applicant’s daughter’s birth in 2008. Applicant claims he had health 
insurance that should have covered the medical expenses, but he was billed for the 
costs. The other debts arose when he was unemployed or underemployed. Applicant 
claimed he was disputing some debts or attempting to set up payment plans for the 
debts. (Item 5, PSI, dated June 24, 2013, at 9-10) 
 
 In his response to the SOR, Applicant again noted that the 19 medical debts 
resulted from his daughter’s birth on May 16, 2008. He again claimed the birth was 
covered by health insurance, but he was still billed for the cost. He attempted to contact 
the medical bill creditors but to no avail. The other SOR debts were incurred during 
period of unemployment or underemployment. He claims to have taken steps to contact 
creditors and establish payment plans. Applicant did not present any documents to 
verify the information. (Item 3, Response to SOR, dated August 19, 2015) 
 
 In his response to the FORM, Applicant claims that he became unemployed in 
2008 and did not get full-time employment until 2013. During that time, he used student 
loans to attend a university. After gaining full-time employment, he started paying, and 
is current now, with his student loans. He is attempting to contact his creditors to 
negotiate settlements. He also is discussing his debt situation with a debt management 
company, so they can negotiate on his behalf. He did not present any documents to 
verify his statements or any actions he is taking on his debts. (Item 9, Response to 
FORM, dated January 4, 2016) 
 
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 
4 
 
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. 
 
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 his 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 
5 
 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  
 
 Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant has significant delinquent debts 
that he has not resolved. Applicant’s delinquent medical bills, student loans, rent 
payments, and other charges are established by credit reports and Applicant’s 
admissions. These 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).   
 
 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 apply only in part. Applicant incurred delinquent debt 
because of his daughter’s medical expenses, and his own periods of low-paying or 
unemployment. Some of the debts may have been incurred by conditions beyond 
Applicant’s control. However, he failed to establish the second requirement of the 
mitigating conditions. He has not established that he acted reasonably and responsibly 
under the circumstances. He presented no information on payment of any debts, 
attempts to contact creditors, or any plans to resolve the debts. AG¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b) 
do not apply. 
 
  Applicant presented no information that he received financial counseling. There 
is no indication that his financial problems are being resolved and are under control. AG 
20(c) does not apply.  
 
6 
 
 Applicant did not establish a good-faith effort to pay his debts. For a good-faith 
effort, there must be an ability to repay the debts, the desire to repay, and evidence of a 
good-faith effort to repay. 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. A meaningful track record of debt payment can be established by evidence of 
actual debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. A promise to pay 
delinquent debts is not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner 
and acting in a financially responsible manner. Applicant must establish that he has a 
reasonable plan to resolve financial problems and has taken significant action to 
implement that plan. Applicant has been employed full time in a reasonably paying 
position since January 2013. 
 
 Even though he is now a full-time employee, Applicant did not present a plan to 
resolve his financial issues. He did not show a meaningful track record of debt 
payments, Applicant’s failure to pay his debts shows that he has not acted reasonably 
and honestly with regard to his financial duties and obligations. He is not managing his 
personal financial obligations 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 he 
has a plan to resolve his financial problems and that he has taken significant action to 
implement that plan.  
 
7 
 
 Applicant has not taken any action to resolve his debts. Applicant has not 
presented sufficient information to establish that he acted reasonably and responsibly 
within his limited finances, and that he will continue to responsibly manage his financial 
obligations. 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.aa  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