DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 15-02446
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On November 20, 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 February 3, 2016.  Applicant received the FORM on February1
12, 2016. He did not submit additional information for the record. I received the case
assignment on August 19, 2016. 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.
The Government submitted five items in support of its case.      1
1
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted allegations ¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.f, and
1.h, under Guideline F, with explanations. He denied SOR allegations ¶ 1.c, and 1.g.,
stating that they were paid in 2015. (Item 1)
Applicant is 41 years old. He is a supervisor of quality programs for a defense
contractor. Applicant obtained his undergraduate degree in October 2012. (Item 2)
Applicant is divorced and has one child. He has been employed with his current
employer since December 2009. This is his first application for a position of trust, which
he completed on January 8, 2013. (Item 2) 
 The SOR alleges eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,884. These
debts include charged-off accounts, medical collection accounts, and a 2013 judgment.
(Item 1) Credit reports confirm the debts. (Items 4, 5, and 6) 
Applicant explained in his SOR Answer that he was unemployed for a period of
time in 2008, when he was fired. He believes that this was not just and that he was
reliable and had earned achievement awards. (Item 3) He cites to several reasons for
his financial difficulties. His then wife stopped working, his employer “under withheld”
income taxes, and divorce. He disclosed on his application that he “just got into too
much credit card debt and was unable to pay it back.” He also noted other non-SOR
debts that he was paying. He did not submit any documentation.
In 2013, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that he had tax
liens but they have been satisfied and released. He also stated that he intended to pay
his other debts by 2013.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
delinquent debts on the SOR. He did not present a personal financial statement.
Applicant stated that the debts in 1.c and 1.g are duplicates ($807). (Answer to SOR) 
Applicant noted that he is working to pay off the debts in the SOR. As to SOR
1.a, in the amount of $14,432, for a voluntary truck repossession, he stated that would
contact the creditor to arrange a settlement.  However, Applicant did not present any
documentary evidence of payments for any SOR debts. He was emphatic that he
intends to pay his debts.  There is no information in the record concerning financial
counseling. 
 
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
2
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
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.
 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
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish his delinquent debts. 
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). He has unresolved debts.
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) partially apply. Applicant provided several
explanations. He has delinquent accounts but offered no evidence to corroborate his
claims or update the status of the accounts. He has been employed since 2009. 
Applicant did not  present new information regarding the status of the delinquent debts.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant claims he is working to
resolve the debts, but he provided no documentary evidence to support his claim.
There is no information about financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem) does not apply. Consequently, I
find that  there are not clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved 
or 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
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. 
4
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 41 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2009. 
Applicant offered several reasons for his delinquent accounts, but provided no nexus
for the debts and their current status. He stated that he wanted to pay his debts.  He
paid his tax liens, which are released.  However, he has not provided information to
show good-faith efforts to pay even some of the smaller debts 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.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Duplicate
Subparagraphs 1.d-1.h: 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 a position of public trust.
Eligibility for access to a position of public trust is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge
5
6