DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACT] )       ADP Case No. 15-07979
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant:  Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant did not present sufficient information to mitigate the trustworthiness
concerns raised by his financial problems. He also did not mitigate the concerns raised
after he deliberately gave false answers to questions about his finances. His request for
eligibility to occupy a position of trust is denied.
Statement of the Case
On June 2, 2015, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (E-QIP) to obtain eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position  for his1
job with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background
investigation, DOD adjudicators were unable to determine that it is clearly consistent
with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s request for a position of trust.  2
On April 7, 2016, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging
facts which raise trustworthiness concerns addressed through the adjudicative
 As defined in Chapter 3 and Appendix 10 of DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, as amended (Regulation).1
 Required by the Regulation, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive).2
1
guidelines (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F) and personal conduct3
(Guideline E). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a
hearing. The case was assigned to me on June 6, 2016, and I convened a hearing on
August 10, 2016. Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4.  Gx. 1 - 3 were admitted without4
objection, but I excluded sua sponte the credit report proffered as Gx. 4 for reasons
stated during the hearing. It is included in the record but I have not considered it. (Tr. 28
- 41) Applicant testified and presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A and B, which were
admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 24,
2016.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $15,156 for 18
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.r). Under Guideline E, the Government
alleged that Applicant knowingly and willfully made a false official statement to the
Government in his E-QIP when he answered “no” to a question in section 26 (Financial
Record: Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts), thereby omitting the debts alleged at
SOR 1.a - 1.r (SOR 2.a). Applicant admitted, with explanations, SOR 1.a, 1.b, and 1.k.
In response to the remaining allegations, Applicant denied SOR 1.j based on
information provided with his Answer. He also denied the debt at SOR 1.r. As to the
remaining allegations, Applicant stated, “This debt is not listed on my credit report and I
refute this as I have no knowledge of monies owed.” (Answer) Based on my review of
the pleadings and the documents provided at hearing by the Government and the
Applicant, I make the following additional findings of fact.
The E-QIP Applicant submitted in June 2015 was at least the second such
application Applicant has submitted for his current position. He also submitted a similar
application for a position of trust in 2005. The current E-QIP shows that Applicant did
not list any of his debts in response to questions in section 26. Applicant denied the
SOR 2.a allegation by saying he did not intend to mislead the Government by his
negative response. Instead, he claimed he did not know about the debts because he did
not review his credit report before completing the E-QIP. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 45)
All of the debts alleged under Guideline F are documented in Gx. 3. Applicant’s
finances were discussed with him during a subject interview by a Government
investigator on April 14, 2015. As the investigator reviewed Applicant’s E-QIP with him,
Applicant affirmed his negative responses in Section 26. Thereafter, the investigator
confronted Applicant with the contents of a credit report obtained after Applicant
submitted his E-QIP. Applicant was able to provide details about the debts later alleged
in the SOR 1.a and 1.b, but he denied knowledge of most of the debts discussed. He
went on to state his intention to pull his credit report and contact his creditors to make
arrangement for payment or other resolutions. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Tr. 48 - 50) 
Applicant is 57 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor in work that
requires eligibility for a position of trust. His employer supports management of the
health care system used by members of the military, and Applicant might be entrusted
with personally identifiable information (PII) associated with the health care system’s
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006. These guidelines were3
published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 
 Department Counsel also provided a list identifying Gx. 1 - 3. It is included as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1.4
2
constituents. Applicant has held his job since October February 1994, and has held a
position of trust at least since about 2004. Written references from co-workers and
personal associates show he has a good reputation at work and in the community for
trustworthiness, expertise, hard work, and integrity. Applicant also is an honorably
discharged military veteran, having served in the Army National Guard between 1986
and 1988. (Gx. 1; Ax. B; Tr. 86 - 88)
Applicant has been married three times. He has four children between the ages
of 14 and 34. His most recent marriage ended in divorce in 2014 after a three-year
separation. In April 2014, when Applicant was interviewed about his finances during his
background investigation, he stated that he was either completely unfamiliar with some
of the debts documented in his credit report (Gx. 3) or that he was unaware that debts
from his marriage had become delinquent. Applicant generally attributed the debts
alleged in the SOR to his ex-wife’s poor management of their finances while they were
together. In response to the SOR in May 2016, he continued his position that it was his
ex-wife’s financial mismanagement that was the cause of his financial problems. He
also relied on the absence of debts in a May 2016 credit report to support his denials.
(Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2)
Applicant testified at hearing that around the time he and his ex-wife split up, she
won $100,000 in a lottery. He further testified his ex-wife agreed to pay their debts if he
agreed to not pursue any share of her lottery winnings as part of their divorce. Applicant
made no mention of his ex-wife’s lottery winnings in his subject interview or in response
to the SOR. He did not present any documentation of any agreements made as part of
their separation or divorce. (Tr. 40 - 41)
At the conclusion of his subject interview in April 2014, Applicant advised that he
intended to pull his credit report and contact his creditors to set up payment plans or
otherwise resolve the debts attributed to him. The record contains no information
showing he did anything to contact his creditors or challenge any of the debts until after
the SOR was issued in May 2016. All of his claims as to the status of his debts are
based on a credit report he obtained in May 2016. At that time, Applicant also submitted
letters to the creditors for SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.j and 1.n. Additionally, he made online
inquiries of his medical insurance company regarding claims submitted by a medical
provider in June and September 2013. In response, the insurer identified only one claim
of $95, but did not state whether the claim was paid or if Applicant owed any money
from said claim. Applicant’s position is that the response to his on-line request shows he
does not owe the medical debts at SOR 1.j and 1.n, because they are attributable to
medical care provided to his adult son, who is his namesake. (Answer; Ax. A; Tr. 34 -
37, 56 - 58)
The largest of Applicant’s debts are the delinquent accounts alleged at SOR 1.a
and 1.b and 1.q. Applicant stated the SOR 1.a debt ($8,409) is for a loan he cosigned
with his third wife. He assumed she had paid the debt as he had heard nothing from the
creditor since 2008 or 2009. The Government’s credit report shows this as an individual,
rather than a joint, liability. This debt is solely attributable to Applicant and remains
unresolved. The $1,045 debt at SOR 1.b is listed as a joint account in the Government’s
credit report. Applicant believes his ex-wife should have paid this debt; however, it
remains unresolved. As to the $1,045 debt at SOR 1.q, Applicant denied this allegation
claiming it does not appear on his May 2016 credit report; however, the debt is listed on
page 28 of the report he provided with his Answer. It remains unresolved. (Answer; Gx.
2; Gx. 3; Ax. A; Tr. 34 - 38)
3
In 2015, Applicant’s adult son was injured in a car accident and was unable to
support his wife and children. Applicant provided about $1,000 each month in financial
support for about a year. His son is now able to support himself and his family without
Applicant’s help. Applicant is able to cover his own monthly obligations as required, with
about $600 to $1,000 remaining after expenses. There is no indication that he has
incurred any new past-due or delinquent debts. Applicant files and pays his federal and
state income taxes as required. (Answer; Tr. 51, 54, 56 - 58)
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I and II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  In5
deciding whether a person should be assigned to an ADP position, it must be
determined that his or her loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that it is
“clearly consistent with the interests of national security” to do so.  The Regulation also6
requires that DOD contractor personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the
Directive before any adverse determination may be made.7
Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense determination based
on examination of all available relevant and material information,  and consideration of8
the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions
must also reflect consideration of the factors, commonly referred to as the “whole-
person” concept, listed in the guidelines at AG ¶ 2(a).  The presence or absence of a9
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific
applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against
them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of eligibility for a
position of trust.
The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a position of trust for an
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one is entitled to a
position of trust, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. 
A person who has access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring applicants possess the requisite judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect sensitive information as his or her
own. Any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access should be
resolved in favor of the Government.
 Regulation, ¶ C3.6.15. 5
 Regulation, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 6
 Regulation, ¶ C8.2.1. 7
 Directive, 6.3.8
  (1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to9
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
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support the SOR allegations. Applicant also
admitted some of the allegations. The record as a whole reflects numerous debts
attributable to Applicant that remained unresolved as of this hearing. These facts
reasonably raise a trustworthiness concern about Applicant’s finances that is
addressed, in relevant part, at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
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.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations). I have also considered the following
pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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 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; 
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant established that he experienced unforeseen circumstances beyond his
control starting in about 2011, when he and his third wife separated. They subsequently
divorced in 2014. He averred that his ex-wife was responsible for paying their marital
debts; however, his claim is not supported by any objective evidence. Also, it is based
on an unsubstantiated claim, made for the first time at hearing, that she was supposed
to pay some of the larger debts in the SOR in exchange for his waiver of any claim to
her lottery winnings. Applicant was asked about the debts attributable to him in an April
2014 interview with a Government investigator, and stated his intention to look into
those debts right after the interview. Yet it was not until after he received the SOR more
than a year later that Applicant initiated contact with any of his creditors. Applicants are
not expected to be debt free, especially under unusual circumstances. What is
5
expected, however, is that they act responsibly and make efforts to address their
financial problems as best they can under those circumstances. The added financial
burden of financially supporting his son in 2015 and 2016 may have prevented Applicant
from actually paying some of his debts, but it should not have stopped him from at least
making contact with his creditors or seeking assistance where appropriate. The record
as a whole shows that Applicant did not address his finances in a timely, productive, or
substantive way until after it became clear to him that his ongoing debts might adversely
impact his eligibility for a position of trust. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(d) do not apply
because Applicant did not exhibit good judgment or respond in a prudent way when the
debts in his credit history were brought to his attention. 
AG ¶ 20(c) is not available because he has not received financial counseling or
otherwise demonstrated that his financial problems are under control. Applicant
disputes many of his debts simply because they do not appear on his May 2016 credit
report. This is not sufficient because he did not establish why, other than the passage of
time, they no longer are no longer reported or why they may not be valid. Therefore, AG
20(e) is no applicable here.
The Government met its burden of producing sufficient reliable information to
support all of the SOR allegations. In response, Applicant did not meet his burden of
producing information that refutes or mitigates the facts established by the Government.
On balance, Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns about his
finances.
Personal Conduct
The trustworthiness concern under this guideline is stated at AG ¶ 15 as follows:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
The only pertinent disqualifying condition is at AG ¶ 16(a):
deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
 
Applicant denied the SOR 2.a allegation that he deliberately withheld adverse
information about his finances. Thus, the burden remained with the Government to 
prove that his E-QIP answers were intended to mislead or deceive.  Available10
information showed that Applicant answered “no” to a question to which he should have
answered “yes.” 
All other information probative of his intent at the time is derived circumstantially
from the entire record. For example, Applicant has completed similar questionnaires to
establish his eligibility for a position of trust at other times in his career. He knew or
should have known what was expected of him in response to the questions about his
 Directive, E3.1.14.10
6
finances, yet he relied on his own failure to obtain a credit report as a rationale for
providing false information. Also, Applicant provided conflicting and unsubstantiated
information about what he believed were his obligations regarding debts from his third
marriage. His failure to mention, until he testified at his hearing, something as unique as
his ex-wife’s lottery winnings as the basis of his assumption that she paid the largest of
his debts undermines his credibility. I conclude from all of the available information that
Applicant knew he had delinquencies for which he was responsible when he completed
the E-QIP. His failure to list at least the debts at SOR 1.a and 1.b shows that he
intended to conceal the true scope of his financial problems. AG ¶ 16(a) applies.
By contrast, I have considered the following AG ¶ 17 mitigating conditions:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully.
AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply. During his April 2015 interview, Applicant affirmed his
answers in the E-QIP before being confronted with the contents of his credit report. In
his  testimony, Applicant persisted in his claim that he was unaware of the presence of
delinquent debts that should have been reported in his E-QIP. AG ¶ 17(b) does not
apply because Applicant did not rely on anyone’s advice about his obligations in
answering the E-QIP, and he was already familiar with the type of financial questions
put to him through the E-QIP. He knew or should have known that one or more of those
questions required an affirmative answer, even if he did not know all of the details
regarding his debts. Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns under this
guideline. 
 
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guidelines E and F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of
the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is well-regarded in the workplace
and in his community. He is a veteran and written references laud him for his work ethic
and integrity. Although this positive information reflects well on Applicant’s character, his
failure to take timely action regarding his debts, and his apparently deliberate attempt to
conceal his debts from the Government leave me with unresolved doubts about his
suitability for a position of public trust. Because protection of the interests of national
security is the principal goal of these adjudications, those doubts must be resolved
against the Applicant.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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.r: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of
national security for Applicant to occupy a position of trust. Applicant’s request for ADP
eligibility is denied.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge
8