DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 15-03170
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 20, 2017
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Systems Program Office
(CHCSPO), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence
(ASDC3I) entered into a memorandum of agreement for DOHA to provide
trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information
Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program
(Regulation), dated January of 1987.
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on November 2, 2012.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  On November 10, 2015, the
Department of Defense (DoD), issued an SOR detailing the trustworthiness concerns
under Guideline F regarding Applicant.  The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and
the adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on December 18, 2015, and she
elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to
Applicant on or about February 10, 2016.  Applicant received the FORM on March 7,
2016.  Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or
mitigation within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant submitted no reply to the FORM.  This
case was assigned to the undersigned on November 1, 2016.  Based upon a review of
the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to sensitive information for a position of
trust is denied.
 
 FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 55 years old and unmarried.  She is employed with a defense
contractor and is seeking to obtain access to sensitive information in connection with
this employment.
The Government opposes Applicant's request for access to sensitive information
on the basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following
findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations  The Government alleges
that Applicant is ineligible for a public trust position because she is financially
overextended and at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
There are nineteen delinquent debts, totaling in excess of $36,000, set forth in
the SOR.  Applicant admits all of the debts except, 1.c., and 1.m.  She is not aware of
the debt set forth in allegation 1.c., and she does not believe that she owes the debt in
1.m.  She has failed to provide any documentary evidence whatsoever to substantiate
her claims.  Applicant’s credit reports dated December 15, 2012; March 18, 2015; and
October 9, 2015, which include information from all three credit reporting agencies,
reflect that Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors listed in the SOR. 
(Government Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.)  
Applicant stated that she was unemployed from December 2006 through July
2009 after the facility she was working at closed.  She received unemployment benefits
until May 2009.  From May 2007 to May 2009, Applicant was a full time student. 
Applicant attributes her excessive indebtedness to loss of income, job changes, and low
pay.  Applicant has also placed her adult children as a priority, and has helped them 
financially when they need it.  She also took a trip to the Bahamas in September 2008. 
Applicant acknowledges that she had not made the best choices in the past about her
finances.  She obtained a part-time job with Wal-mart in July 2009.  There is no further
information provided concerning Applicant’s present employment.     
There is insufficient evidence in the record to show that Applicant has mitigated
her financial situation.  There is no evidence that she has paid off any of the debts, nor
2
has she set up any payment plans that she is following.  The following debts listed in the
SOR are delinquent to those respective creditors listed, and remain owing:       
1.a.  A delinquent medical account in the approximate amount of $506.
1.b.  A delinquent account charged off in the approximate amount of $8,157.
1.c.  A delinquent debt placed for collections in the approximate amount of            
$1,698.
1.d.  A delinquent debt placed for collections in the approximate amount of $530. 
1.e. A delinquent bank debt charged off in the approximate amount of $11,129.
1.f.  A delinquent debt placed for collections in the approximate amount of             
$3,269. 
 
1.g.  A delinquent debt placed for collections in the approximate amount of            
$1,899. 
 
1.h.  A delinquent debt charged off in the approximate amount of $1,703.
1.i.  A delinquent debt charged off in the approximate amount of $530.
1.j.  A delinquent debt charged off in the approximate amount of $729.
1.k.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,617. 
1.l.  A delinquent debt placed for collections in the approximate amount of $763.
1.m.  A delinquent medical account placed for collection in the approximate
amount of $142.   
1.n.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,100. 
1.o.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,033. 
1.p.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $217.   
1.q.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $61.
1.r.  A delinquent debt placed for collection in the approximate amount of $361.
1.s.  A delinquent debt 120 days or more past due in the approximate amount of
$600. 
3
POLICIES
Positions designated as ADP I, II, or III 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 commonsense 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
4
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
sensitive information.
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  Failure or 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 sensitive information.  An
individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
5
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to sensitive information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to [sensitive] information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSION
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates poor
judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
trustworthiness determination.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a public trust position.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F). This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct and circumstances, I conclude there is
a nexus or connection with his eligibility for access to sensitive information.
The evidence shows that Applicant has done nothing to resolve her delinquent
debts.  It can be argued that Applicant’s debts could be deemed to have resulted form
circumstances beyond her control, however, Applicant has failed to provided sufficient
6
evidence to that she acted reasonably to address the debt.  From the limited evidence 
presented, she has been unable to pay her debts due to bad financial decisions, periods
of unemployment, and low wages.  She has also had other priorities more important to
her than paying off her delinquent debts.  In order to be eligible to hold a position of
trust, a person must show a pattern of financial responsibility.  The Applicant must be
capable of living within her means, and must budget her lifestyle accordingly.  There is
insufficient evidence in the record to show that Applicant can live within her means.  It is
evident that her finance situation is not under control.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, Applicant has not met her
burden of proving that she is eligible for a public trust position.   It appears that she does
not have a concrete understanding of his financial responsibilities.  She has sufficiently
addressed her delinquent debts in the SOR.  Thus, it cannot be said that she has made
a good-faith effort to resolve her past-due indebtedness.  She has not shown that she is
or has been reasonably, responsibly, or prudently addressing her financial situation. 
Considering all of the evidence, Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in
rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to sensitive information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard sensitive and
protected information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects that her financial indebtedness can have on her ability to safeguard sensitive
and protected information.  On balance, it is concluded that Applicant has not overcome
the Government's case opposing her request for a public trust position.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 of the SOR.  
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.    1.a. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.c. Against the Applicant.
7
Subpara.    1.d. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.e. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.f. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.g. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.h. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.i. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.j. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.k. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.l. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.m. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.n. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.o. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.p. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.q. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.r. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.s. Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a public trust position for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge
8