1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
------------------------ )  ADP Case No. 14-01766 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Deputy Chief Department Counsel 
 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
March 27, 2017 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: 
 
 On February 13, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). (Item 3.) On July 14, 2014, the Department of 
Defense (DoD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). (Item 1.) The 
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense 
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD for 
SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
  
Applicant replied to the SOR in writing (Response) on November 17, 2014, and 
she requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 
2.) On March 1, 2016, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A 
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the 
 
2 
 
 
FORM, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits. (Items 1-7.)2 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM on March 11, 2016. She was given 30 
days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant 
submitted additional information, which has been marked and admitted into evidence 
without objection as Applicant’s Exhibit A. The case was assigned to this Administrative 
Judge on May 31, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility to 
occupy a sensitive position is denied. 
 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is 57 years old, and has one adult child. She received a divorce from 
her second husband in 2009. She has been employed in the defense industry by the 
same employer since 2005.  
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F – Financial Considerations) 
 
 The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for a public 
trust position because she is financially overextended and therefore potentially 
unreliable, untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The SOR lists two delinquent debts, totaling approximately $18,223. Applicant admitted 
allegation 1.a, with explanations. She denied allegation 1.b, also with explanations. The 
existence and amounts of both debts is supported by credit reports dated February 28, 
2013; March 12, 2014; and February 16, 2016. (Items 5, 6, and 7.) 
 
 1.a. Applicant admitted that she owes a bank $16,309 for a past-due debt that 
has been charged off. She stated in her Response: 
 
After my divorce I decided to go to a Debt Consolidating Company . . . to 
get help so I could pay off my credit cards. I didn’t want to file bankruptcy. 
I was such a mess after my divorce that I would just shut down when it 
came time for me to pay my bills. When working with a Debt Consolidating 
Company they pay off one credit card at a time. They start off with the 
smallest amounts first of course [this creditor] was the last card to pay off 
because of the large amount owed. They decided to write it off. I felt really 
bad, but also understood. 
 
 This debt is not resolved. 
 
                                                          
2Department Counsel submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 4 is inadmissible 
and will not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of 
Applicant conducted by an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on March 12, 2013. It 
was never adopted by Applicant as her own statement, or otherwise certified by her to be accurate. Under 
EO 10865 Section 5, and Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the 
absence of an authenticating witness. Given Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative.  
 
3 
 
 
 1.b. Applicant denied owing $1,914 for a past-due credit card debt. She alleged 
in the Response that the Debt Consolidating Company resolved this debt. Department 
Counsel admitted in the FORM that the most recent credit report in the record (Item 7) 
confirmed that this debt has been paid. It is resolved. 
 
 A review of Items 5 and 7 reflect that Applicant had several paid charge-offs. This 
supports her statement that she was working with a Debt Consolidating Company to 
resolve her debts. Item 7 and Applicant’s Exhibit A, however, show that her financial 
situation is still not under control. Applicant has a $4,000 unpaid delinquency in 
connection with a truck loan she co-signed for her nephew. The record shows that her 
other debts, which includes an auto loan and two credit card debts, are current. She 
admits, “I’m just barely making ends meet each month.” (Applicant Exhibit A.) 
 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I, II, and 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 the DoD and DOHA by the Defense 
Security Service and Office of Personnel Management. DoD 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 
Adjudicative Guidelines (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 AG ¶ 2(a), describing the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge’s overarching 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. 
  
 
4 
 
 
According to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel 
and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable [trustworthiness] 
decision.” 
 
 A person who applies for access to sensitive information seeks to enter 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.  
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under this 
order adverse to an applicant 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.” 
See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified 
or sensitive information.) 
 
 
Analysis 
 
 Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations) 
 
 The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations 
is set out in AG ¶ 18:   
 
      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.  
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns 
and could potentially apply in this case. Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness 
to satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not 
meeting financial obligations” may raise trustworthiness concerns. I find that both of 
these disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has 
established that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt, a substantial part of 
which she has been unable or unwilling to repay. 
 
5 
 
 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness concerns from 
financial difficulties. AG ¶ 20(a) states it may be mitigating when the behavior happened 
so long ago, was infrequent, or is unlikely to recur. That is inapplicable because the 
debts have been in existence for several years, and the largest past-due bank debt 
continues to date. 
 
Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating where, “the conditions that resulted in the 
financial problem 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.” Applicant states that her 
divorce in 2009 began this period in her life of not being able to pay her debts. This 
condition has some applicability, but is not controlling since her finances are not yet 
under control. 
  
 I find that AG ¶ 20(c) is not applicable. Applicant admits that her current financial 
situation is not under control. She is unable to pay the large, past-due, debt for the truck 
loan she co-signed for with her nephew. The creditor in allegation 1.a has charged off 
the debt, but there is no evidence they have forgiven it, such as by providing Applicant 
an IRS Form 1099. 
 
With regard to the single alleged debt that has been paid (1.b), AG ¶ 20(d) is 
applicable, since Applicant has “initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts.” However, there is no current evidence that she has paid or 
otherwise resolved the other alleged debt, which is more than eight times larger. 
Therefore, I find Guideline F against Applicant. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position 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):  
 
(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.  
 
According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
trustworthiness determination must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon 
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
 
6 
 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on the lack of evidence to 
establish that Applicant has made concrete efforts to resolve the large past-due debt 
listed on the SOR, and the fact that her current financial situation is not stable, I find that 
the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s 
eligibility and suitability for access to sensitive information, under the whole-person 
concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the 
trustworthiness concerns under the whole-person concept. 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:     Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    For 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 public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
                                               
 
  
_______________________ 
Wilford H. Ross 
Administrative Judge