1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Redacted] )  ADP Case No. 15-08071 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigation Processing (e-
QIP) on January 30, 2015, seeking to continue her eligibility for a public trust position. On 
April 20, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent her a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR), citing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. DOD acted under DOD 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel 
Security Program (January 1987), as amended (Regulation); and the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006. The guidelines are codified 
in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006), and they replace the guidelines in Appendix 8 of 
the Regulation. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on September 14, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on October 
20, 2016, and the case was assigned to me on November 10, 2016. The Defense Office 
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent Applicant a notice of hearing on November 15, 
2 
 
2016, scheduling the hearing for December 8, 2016. On December 2, 2016, DOHA sent 
her an amended notice of hearing, changing the hearing date to December 6, 2016. I 
convened the hearing as rescheduled. She waived the 15-day notice requirement in 
Directive ¶ E3.1.8 for the amended hearing date. (Tr. 17-18.) Government Exhibits (GX) 
1 through 6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified, presented 
the testimony of one witness, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A and B, which 
were admitted without objection. I kept the record open until January 6, 2017, to enable 
her to submit additional documentary evidence. She timely submitted AX C through H.1 
DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on December 15, 2016. 
 
Findings of Fact2 
 
 In her response to the SOR, Applicant did not admit or deny the allegations in SOR 
¶¶ 1.a-1.d and 1.f, but she stated that the debts were being paid or were resolved. She 
admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.g and 1.k. She denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 
1.h-1.j and 1.l-1.p. Her admissions in her answer to the SOR and at the hearing have 
been incorporated in my findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 41-year-old call center quality auditor employed by a federal 
contractor since December 2004. She had been holding a public trust position for about 
ten years when she submitted her e-QIP. (Tr. 7-8.) 
 
 Applicant married in February 1994 and divorced in October 2004. She married 
her current spouse in August 2007. She has two children, ages 23 and 20, from her first 
marriage, and a 3-year-old child and three stepchildren, ages 22, 19, and 15, from her 
second marriage. Her 20-year-old and 3-year-old children live with her.  
 
 When Applicant submitted her e-QIP, she disclosed that she failed to timely file 
her federal income tax returns for 2005 through 2007 and failed to pay the taxes due, 
estimated at about $7,000. In a response to DOHA financial interrogatories in June 2016, 
She admitted that she failed to timely file her federal income tax returns for 2006 through 
2009. She stated that she had recently filed the past-due returns and owed about $7,636 
for those four years. She also admitted that she failed to timely file her state income tax 
returns for 2007 through 2014, that she had filed her state returns for 2013 and 2014, and 
that she had received refunds of $9 and $5 from the state. (GX 3 at 2-6.) She provided 
no documentation that any of the past-due federal and state returns had been filed. At 
the hearing, she admitted that she did not have a good reason for her failure to timely file 
her tax returns. (Tr. 39.) Her failures to timely file her federal and state returns are alleged 
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. 
 
                                                          
1 At the hearing, Applicant indicated that she wanted an opportunity to submit a more recent credit bureau 
report (CBR). (Tr. 24.) After the hearing, she submitted AX F, the first page of a December 2016 CBR, 
which reflected her current credit score, but it does not reflect the status of any debts. 
 
2 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her e-QIP (GX 1) unless otherwise indicated by a 
parenthetical citation to the record. 
3 
 
 The SOR also alleges 14 delinquent debts reflected in Applicant’s credit bureau 
reports (CBRs) from February 2015 and May 2016. (GX 4; GX 5.) The evidence 
concerning these debts is summarized below. 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.b: federal tax debt ($7,637). Applicant responded to DOHA 
interrogatories by stating that this debt was paid, but she submitted no documentation of 
payment. After the hearing, she submitted evidence that she had a payment agreement 
with the IRS in 2012. (AX E.) In her interrogatory responses, she stated that she was 
unable to make the payments to the IRS after 2012 because her pay was garnished for 
delinquent student loans. She testified at the hearing that she was paying $220 per month 
under a new payment agreement with the IRS. (Tr. 30.) She submitted no documentation 
of payments or a new agreement. (AX C.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.d: state tax debt ($2,126). Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories 
about this debt and stated that the debt was paid. (GX 3 at 3.) She provided no 
documentation of payment. At the hearing, she testified that she was still negotiating with 
the state about her tax debt, and she believed that she will eventually receive a refund. 
(Tr. 38.) The debt is not resolved. 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f: delinquent student loans referred for collection of $2,853 
and $2,773. In August 2015, Applicant’s pay was garnished to pay these debts, at the 
rate of about $418 per two-week pay period. (AX A; AX B; AX G; AX H.) The May 2016 
CBR reflected that the balances had been reduced but the debts were still delinquent. 
(GX 5 at 3.) In August 2016, she was notified by the creditor that the debts were paid in 
full. (Answer to SOR, attachment 1.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.g: telecommunications bill referred for collection of $917. Applicant 
testified that this debt became delinquent around 2012. She contacted the creditor in July 
or August 2016. She disagrees with the amount due, but she has not disputed the debt 
with the credit reporting bureau and has not reached an agreement with the creditor (Tr. 
54-56.) The debt is not resolved. 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.h: medical bill referred for collection of $1,063; SOR ¶¶ 1.l-1.p: 
medical bills referred for collection of various amount from $100 to $204. Applicant 
denied these debts in her answer to the SOR and asserted that they were covered by her 
insurance. She believes that the debts were incurred in connection with the birth of her 
three-year-old child in February 2014. (Tr. 62.) She testified that she contacted the 
creditor in September 2016, but the debts are not resolved. (Tr. 57-58.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.i: personal loan referred for collection of $1,025. Applicant testified 
that she incurred this debt in 2012, when she borrowed money to travel to her 
grandmother’s funeral. She believed the debt was paid, but she was unable to produce 
any documentation of payment. (Tr. 58-59.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.j: car title loan referred for collection of $331. Applicant testified that 
she co-signed a title loan for her son. (Tr. 59-60.) As of the date the record closed, she 
had not resolved this debt. 
4 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.k: utility bill referred for collection of $257. Applicant admitted this 
debt, which was a utility bill for a previous residence. She contacted the creditor in 
September 2016, but she has not resolved the debt. (Tr. 61.) 
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant submitted a financial statement reflecting 
monthly household income of $3,795 and expenses of $3,483 (including payments to the 
IRS), leaving a net monthly remainder of about $312. At the hearing, she testified that 
she expected her medical insurance premiums to decline by about $200 per month, which 
will increase the net monthly remainder. (Tr. 36.) She is the primary bread-winner for the 
family. Her husband is employed, but most of his earnings are used to pay child support 
for his children. (Tr. 35.) She testified that she expected to receive about $2,000 for “paid 
time off” from her employer in late January 2017, which she intends to use to pay off her 
debts. (Tr. 56-57.) 
 
 Applicant testified that she received credit counseling in 2010 or 2011. The 
counseling appears to have been limited to resolving issues regarding the accuracy of 
her CBRs. (Tr. 65.) She provided no documentation of any counseling. She does not have 
a written budget. Instead, she simply lists her bills on her cell phone. (Tr. 66.) 
 
 Applicant and a co-worker have been friends for about 11 years. Applicant has 
rented her home from her co-worker for about five years and is regarded as a good and 
reliable tenant. Even when she had financial difficulties, she always paid her rent on time. 
Applicant has always been honest with her friend. Applicant’s friend was not aware that 
she did not file her income tax returns for several years. (Tr. 71-77.) 
 
 Applicant’s current supervisor submitted a letter attesting to her trustworthiness, 
dependability, and resourcefulness. The supervisor stated that Applicant has a positive 
attitude and is passionate about her work. She described Applicant as an excellent team 
leader, trainer, auditor and mentor for her co-workers. (AX D.) 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.” 
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 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.” Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1. DOD contractor personnel are 
entitled to the procedural protections in the Directive before any final unfavorable access 
determination may be made. Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.  
 
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. Decisions include, 
by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or 
inadvertently fail to safeguard sensitive information.  
 
5 
 
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 an evaluation of the 
whole person. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial 
and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.  
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Under AG 
¶ 2(b), “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to [sensitive] 
information will be resolved in favor of national security.” The Government must present 
substantial evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ 
E3.1.14. Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant has the ultimate burden of 
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant or continue 
eligibility for access to sensitive information.  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The concern under this guideline 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. 
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise sensitive information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting sensitive 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding sensitive information. See ISCR 
Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, her CBRs, her testimony at the hearing, and the 
documentary evidence submitted at the hearing establish three disqualifying conditions 
under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”), AG ¶ 19(c) 
(“a history of not meeting financial obligations”), and AG ¶ 19(g) (“failure to file annual 
Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same”). 
The following mitigating conditions under this guideline are potentially applicable: 
 
6 
 
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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(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. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are numerous, recent, 
and were not incurred under circumstances making them unlikely to recur. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) is not fully established. Applicant’s divorce and childbirth-related 
medical expenses were conditions beyond her control, but she has not acted 
responsibly. She offered no reasonable explanation for failing to file her federal and state 
income tax returns. She had a payment agreement with the IRS in 2012, but was unable 
to comply with it because her pay was garnished for delinquent student loans. The 
medical bills have been pending since 2014 without being resolved. She did not contact 
the telecommunications company alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g until mid-2016. She did not 
contact the utility company alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k until September 2016, after she received 
the SOR. 
 
AG ¶ 20(c) is not established. Applicant testified that she hired a credit-repair 
company around 2010, but she has not received financial counseling within the meaning 
of the mitigating condition, and her financial situation is not yet under control.  
 
AG ¶ 20(d) is not established. Applicant claimed at the hearing that she had filed 
all her federal and state income tax returns, but she provided no documentation to support 
her claim. She receives some credit for making a payment agreement with the IRS, but it 
ended in 2012 when she could no longer make the agreed payments. She testified that 
she has negotiated a new agreement with the IRS, but she provided no documentary 
evidence to support her testimony. Her state tax debt is not resolved. She has taken no 
significant steps to resolve the telecommunication debt, utility debt, personal loan, car title 
loan, and her medical debts. Her delinquent student loans have been satisfied by 
7 
 
garnishment, but payment by involuntary garnishment, “is not the same as, or similar to, 
a good-faith initiation of repayment by the debtor.” ISCR Case No. 09-5700 (App. Bd. 
Feb. 24, 2011).  
 
Applicant’s limited efforts to resolve her debts occurred only recently, indicating 
that she was motivated more by concern about protecting her public trust position than a 
sense of obligation. Evidence of past irresponsibility is not mitigated by payment of debts 
only under pressure of qualifying for a public trust position. She promised to resolve her 
debts when she receives the $2,000 payment for paid time off. However, a promise to 
pay a delinquent debt in the future is not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in 
a timely manner. ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008). 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) is not established. Although Applicant disputed the medical debts and 
several others, she provided no documentation of the disputes or the basis for them. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
public trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole-
person concept, an 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. An 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.  
 
I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis, 
and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(a).  At the hearing, Applicant testified that 
she had resolved or was in the process of resolving some of her debts, and she promised 
to provide documentation to support her testimony. However, most of her testimony 
remains unsupported by documentary evidence. Applicants who testify that debts have 
been resolved are expected to present documentary evidence supporting their testimony. 
See ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016). 
 
Applicant’s failure to file tax returns suggests that she has difficulty complying with 
well-established governmental rules and systems. Voluntary compliance with such rules 
and systems is essential for protecting sensitive information. ISCR Case No. 01-05340 
at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2002). A trustworthiness adjudication is not directed at collecting 
debts or inducing an applicant to file past-due tax returns. Rather, it is a proceeding 
8 
 
aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment and reliability. Applicant’s repeated failures 
to fulfill her legal obligations indicate that she lacks the high degree of good judgment 
and reliability required of those entrusted with sensitive information. See ISCR Case No. 
14-04159 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2016).  
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her delinquent debts and failures to 
timely file her federal and state income tax returns. Accordingly, I conclude she has not 
carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with national security to continue 
her eligibility for a public trust position. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1a-1.d:    Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.e-1.f:    For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.g-1.p:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with national security to continue 
Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility for a public trust position is 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge