1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 15-04025 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ross Hyams, 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 20,2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a public trust position with a 
defense agency. (Item 4) Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator from the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on February 21, 2013. (Item 5) After reviewing 
the results of the OPM investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make 
the affirmative findings required to grant Applicant access to sensitive information. On 
December 6, 2015, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for financial 
trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. The action was taken under Department of 
Defense 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) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on January 4, 2016 (Item 3). She admitted 14 of 
the 15 allegations of delinquent debt. Applicant denied allegation SOR 1.b because it 
2 
 
was no longer on her credit report. Applicant also noted that SOR allegations 1.d 
through 1.l and allegation 1.o are not on her latest credit report. Applicant also claims 
that SOR allegation 1.c was paid, and that she is establishing payment plans for 
allegations 1.m and 1.n. She requested a decision on the record. Department Counsel 
submitted the Government’s written case on April 13, 2016. Applicant received a 
complete file of relevant material (FORM) on April 14, 2016, and provided the 
opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
disqualifying conditions. Applicant timely submitted information in response to the 
FORM on May 26, 2016. (Item 8) The case was assigned to me on February 23, 2017.  
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject 
Interview (PSI) with an OPM investigator (Item 5) 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 PSI summary. Applicant, in her response to the FORM, did not raise 
any objection to consideration of the PSI. Since there is no objection by Applicant, I will 
consider information in the PSI in my decision.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 33 years old and graduated from high school in May 2003. She has post-
high school education and has a certificate to operate a medical device. She never 
married but has a young child. Applicant experienced various periods of unemployment, 
some lengthy, since 2003. She did not receive unemployment compensation during her 
periods of unemployment but relied on her parents for support. She has been employed 
as a medical claims examiner for a health care agency with government contracts since 
February 2013. The health care agency is sponsoring her for a public trust position. 
(Item 4, e-QIP, dated November 19, 2012; Item 5, PSI, dated February 21. 2013) 
 
 The SOR alleges and credit reports (Item 6, dated December 18, 2012; Item 7, 
dated March 27, 2015) confirm 15 delinquent debts for Applicant from student loans, 
credit cards, telephone service, and medical bills. Applicant, in her answer to the SOR, 
admitted all of the debts except SOR 1.b. She denied this debt because it was no longer 
on her credit report. While she admitted other debts, she stated that some are not 
shown on her credit reports (SOR 1.d – 1.g, 1.k -1.l, and 1.o), or have been removed 
from the credit reports. (SOR 1.h – 1.j, and 1.l) She notes that two accounts has been 
paid in full (SOR 1.c, and 1.n), and that she has a payment plan in place for two others. 
(SOR 1.a and 1.m)  
 
The total amount of the delinquent debt is approximately $25,174. Applicant 
listed most of her delinquent debt on her e-QIP. She attributes her delinquent debt to 
3 
 
opening too many credit cards from 2004 and 2006. She used the cards to pay for living 
expenses, gas, food, and household items. Even though her mother advised her not to 
open the credit card accounts, she did not understand the consequences of credit debt 
until she fell behind on payments. (Item 5, PSI, at 4) 
 
 Applicant claims that she is making payments on her student loans at SOR 1.a, 
and 1.c. In response to the FORM, Applicant provided sufficient information to establish 
payments for the debt at SOR 1.a, and that the debt at SOR 1.c is paid in full. Applicant 
claims in her response to the SOR that she is establishing payment plans for the credit 
card debt at SOR 1.m and the medical debt at SOR 1.n. In her response to the FORM, 
Applicant provided sufficient information that the debts at SOR 1.m and 1.n are paid. 
(Item 8, Response to FORM)  
 
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant claims that her remaining debts are no 
longer on her credit reports. Applicant did not provide any information on her plans to 
pay the debts, any payments on the debts, or the reasons why the debts were removed 
from the credit reports. As noted in the credit reports at Items 6 and 7, most of these 
debts were incurred from 2005 until 2010. The credit report states that most debts are 
removed seven years after being incurred. Thus, the debts are eligible to be removed 
from the credit reports because of their age. The credit reports provided by Applicant in 
answer to the FORM, do not state that the debts are being paid, have been paid, or 
otherwise settled. I conclude that Applicant failed to prove that the accounts were not 
deleted from the credit reports because of the passage of time.  
 
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. 
4 
 
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. 
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, thereby indicating poor self-control, 
lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulation. These issues 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 (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 position of trust. 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 
5 
 
that she has not resolved. Applicant’s delinquent debts 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 
 
(d) the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant incurred delinquent debt 
starting in 2004, when she opened too many credit cards and had insufficient income to 
make her required debt payments. She had and used a number of credit cards, so she 
incurred debt frequently. Applicant’s debts are numerous, recent, and were not incurred 
under circumstances making recurrence unlikely She opened and used the credit cards 
herself so the conditions causing the debts were not unusual, beyond her control, and 
can recur. Applicant paid or is paying a limited number of her debts. However, she did 
not present information that she is addressing and resolving the majority of her debts. 
She has not established that she acted reasonably and responsibly under the 
circumstances. She did not present information on attempts to contact several creditors, 
payments made on several debts, or plans to resolve some debts. Instead, she appears 
to be relying on her debts being removed from her credit reports by the simple passage 
of time. While some debts may have been dropped from the current credit report, this 
occurrence does not necessarily establish mitigation. There is more than one plausible 
explanation for the absence of debts from a credit report, such as the removal of debt 
due to the passage of time. The absence of unsatisfied debts from an individual’s credit 
report does not extenuate or mitigate the overall history of financial difficulties or 
constitute evidence of financial reform or rehabilitation.  
 
 Applicant presented no information that she received financial counseling. There 
is no indication that her financial problems are being resolved and are under control.   
6 
 
 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 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 did not present any documents to establish any direct payment on most 
of the debts. She presented information that a medical debt, a personal loan, and a 
student loan were paid, and she is making payments on another student loan. However, 
she presented no information concerning her plans to pay her other debts. Without 
payment plan information, Applicant failed to establish a a good-faith effort to the 
remaining debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s failure to establish payment of or a plan 
to pay her debts shows that she has not acted reasonably and honestly with regard to 
her financial duties and obligations. She is not managing her personal financial 
obligations responsibly. Based on all of the financial information, I conclude that 
Applicant has not mitigated trustworthiness concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s trustworthiness eligibility 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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a trustworthiness 
clearance 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 is required to show that 
she has a plan to resolve her financial problems, and that she has taken significant 
action to implement that plan. Applicant has not established that she has a plan to 
resolve her delinquent debts except to let them come off her credit reports because of 
7 
 
the passage of time. She has not taken sufficient actions to reasonably and responsibly 
resolve her delinquent debts and manage her financial obligations within her resources. 
Accordingly, she has not established that she can be trusted to manage sensitive 
information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts 
pertaining to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and her eligibility and 
suitability for a trustworthiness clearance. For all these reasons, Applicant’s 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 
 
 Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraph 1.b:   Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.d – 1.l:  Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1. m – 1.n  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraph 1.o:   Against Applicant 
  
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge