1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 15-02741 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, 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 15, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a public trust position with a 
defense contractor. (Item 4) Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator from 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on January 25, 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. The action 
was taken under DOD 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 in writing on November 20, 2015. She admitted 6 
and denied 5 of the 11 financial allegations without explanation. Applicant requested a 
decision on the record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case 
on January 14, 2016. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on 
February 8, 2016, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit 
2 
 
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 
September 2, 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.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the case file, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is a 36 year old high school graduate with some college credits. She has been 
a benefits analyst for a defense contractor since 1999. She never married but has two 
teenage children. (Item 4, e-QIP, dated November 18, 2012; Item 6, Personal Subject 
Interview, dated January 25, 2013)  
 
 Applicant reported on the e-QIP (Item 4) that in the last seven years she had 
property and vehicles repossessed; defaulted on a loan; had bills or debts turned over 
to a collection agency; had an account or credit card suspended, charged off or 
cancelled for failure to pay as agreed; and has been or is over 120 days delinquent on a 
debt. Applicant listed a car repossession (SOR 1.a), utility bill (SOR 1.i), medical bill 
(SOR 1.g), and a mail order bill (SOR 1.h) as delinquent debts on her e-QIP. The SOR 
alleges, and credit reports (Item 5, Credit Report, dated January 12, 2013; Item 7, 
Credit Report, dated March 5, 2015) confirm the following delinquent debts for 
Applicant; a vehicle repossession in 2011 with a charged off balance of $4,907 (SOR 
1.a); a vehicle repossession in 2008 (SOR 1.b); a vehicle repossession in 2005 (SOR 
1.c); an account 180 days past due for $1,502 (SOR 1.d); a credit account charged off 
for $808 (SOR 1.e); a cell phone account in collection for $354 (SOR 1.f); a medical 
account in collection for $248 (SOR 1.g); a mail order account in collection for $71 
(SOR 1.h); a utility debt charged off for $637 (SOR 1.i); an account in collection for $328 
(SOR 1.j); and another account in collection for $493 (SOR 1.k). The total delinquent 
amount due is approximately $9,348.  
 
 While Applicant admitted some debts and denied others, she did not provide any 
reasons or circumstances for her delinquent debts. She told the security investigator 
that her current financial status is “okay”, and she is able to meet her current financial 
obligations. She reported that some of her delinquent debts were due to circumstances 
3 
 
beyond her control while others were not. She did not list any circumstances beyond her 
control which led to delinquent debt. She has no financial problems in general and she 
does not intend to have any delinquent debt in the future. (Item 6, PSI, at 3) 
 
 Applicant acknowledged to the security investigator in the PSI the repossession 
of a vehicle in 2011 as noted at SOR 1.a. She reported only that the vehicle was having 
mechanical problems and she had the creditor repossess the vehicle. She did not know 
when the account was opened, how long she paid on the account, the amount the 
creditor received for the vehicle, and the outstanding balance. She did not provide any 
documents to establish she made payments on the debt or her plan to resolve the debt. 
 
 Applicant told the security investigator that she had a vehicle repossessed in 
2008 because it had mechanical problems which led to the debt at SOR 1.b. She did 
not know the amount owed but believes she should have been given credit for the sale 
of the vehicle. She did not provide any documents to establish that she made any 
payments on this debt. Applicant could not provide any information on the 2005 car 
repossession at SOR 1.c. (Item 6, PSI, at 5) 
 
 Applicant admitted the delinquent loan at SOR 1.d. The loan was used to 
purchase a laptop computer and a television. Applicant insured the laptop against 
damage. She reported that the laptop was damaged and did not make any additional 
payments on the loan because she thought the insurance would pay the loan. The loan 
was not paid by the insurance company. Applicant attempted to reach a settlement with 
the creditor. The creditor offered to settle the debt for half the amount owed. Applicant 
has not decided to accept the offer but plans to still negotiate with the creditor. She has 
not provided any additional information on the status of the debt. (Item 6, PSI at 5) 
 
 Applicant told the OPM investigator that she had no knowledge of the delinquent 
debts listed at SOR 1.e and 1.f. Applicant admitted other delinquent debts to the 
investigator. She admitted the medical debt at SOR 1.g which resulted from medical 
treatment for her. She made payments on the overall debt when she had the funds 
which resulted in the balance listed in the SOR. She plans to contact the doctor to 
establish a payment plan. She disputed the mail order debt as noted in SOR 1.h. She 
never ordered from this merchant. She admitted the utility debt at SOR 1.i. She reported 
that she made some payments on the overall debt and plans to call the utility and 
establish a payment plan for the remaining amount of the debt as listed on the SOR. 
She has no knowledge of the debts for the same creditor listed at SOR 1.j and 1.k. She 
did not know when the accounts were opened, the reason for the delinquency, and the 
amount owed. She told the security investigator that she planned to research to resolve 
the debts. (Item 6, PSI, at 4-5) 
 
 Applicant provided no additional details, except for her admissions and denials of 
individual debts, in her response to the SOR (Item 3) Applicant had an opportunity to 
provide additional financial information in response to the FORM but chose not to 
respond. In general, Applicant did not provide any information on the reasons for the 
debts, any payments made on the debts, or her plans to resolve the debts. 
 
4 
 
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. 
 
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. 
5 
 
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 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 security clearance. 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.  
 
 Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant has significant delinquent debts 
that she has not resolved. Applicant’s delinquent medical bills, loan payments, utility 
payments, and charges from repossession 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 
6 
 
(d) the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 The mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant’s debts are numerous, recent, 
and were not incurred under circumstances making recurrence unlikely. She did not 
present any information to establish that the debts were incurred by circumstances 
beyond her control. She presented no information on payment of any debts, attempts to 
contact creditors, or any plans to resolve the debts. She did not establish that she acted 
responsibly under the circumstances. AG¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b) do not apply. 
 
  Applicant presented no information that she received financial counseling. There 
is no indication that her financial problems are being resolved and are under control. AG 
20(c) does not apply.  
 
 Applicant did not establish a good-faith effort to pay her 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 she has a 
reasonable plan to resolve financial problems and has taken significant action to 
implement that plan.  
 
 Applicant was aware that her financial problems were a trustworthiness concern 
when she submitted her trustworthiness application in December 2012. She has been 
gainfully employed since 1999. She has not established that she paid any of her 
delinquent debts, nor did she present a plan to resolve her financial issues. She did not 
show a meaningful track record of debt payments, Applicant’s failure to pay and 
establish a plan to pay her debts shows that she has not acted reasonably and honestly 
with regard to her financial duties and obligations. The evidence does not support 
responsible management of her finances, and her financial problems are not under 
control. Her lack of reasonable and responsible action towards her finances is a strong 
indication that she may not protect and safeguard sensitive information. Based on all of 
the financial information, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated trustworthiness 
concerns based on financial considerations. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should 
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
7 
 
(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 eligibility for access to 
classified information 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 did not provide sufficient 
credible documentary information to establish that she paid or is paying her delinquent 
debts. She has not established that she has a reasonable and responsible plan to 
resolve her financial problems. Applicant did not demonstrate appropriate management 
of her finances and a consistent record of action to resolve financial issues. Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts concerning Applicant’s judgment, 
reliability, trustworthiness, and eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness clearance. 
She has not established her suitability for access to sensitive information. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising 
from her financial situation. 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.k:   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 eligibility for a pulic trust 
position.  Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge