DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ADP Case No. 15-07346
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust1
position.
On 21 August 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F,
Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision2
without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in
this case closed 17 August 2016, when Applicant’s Response to the FORM was due.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-6.1
DoD conducts trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems2
Positions pursuant to 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. On 10 December 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
signed Security Executive Agent Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or
after 8 June 2017. 
1
Applicant provided no additional evidence. DOHA assigned the case to me 22 May
2017.
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.c. She is a
27-year-old customer service representative sponsored for a public trust position by a
defense contractor, for whom she has worked since January 2015. She has not
previously had a trustworthiness determination. She has never married, and lives with
her parents.
Applicant was unemployed from October 2011 to March 2012, from May 2012 to
September 2012, and from August 2014 to January 2015. However, it appears that she
left her last employment voluntarily in August 2014 to look for a better job.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (Items 3-6) establish, 10 delinquent
debts totaling about $15,000. Applicant admits all but the $1,500 past-due balance on a
vehicle loan, which she claims, without corroboration, “has been taken care of.” The
debts consist of the delinquent vehicle loan, two unpaid parking tickets, three delinquent
medical accounts, two delinquent education accounts, and two unpaid consumer
accounts. Applicant disclosed five debts, four of which are SOR debts, on her January 
2015 clearance application (Item 3). She discussed these debts, along with the
remaining SOR debts during a July 2015 interview with a Government investigator (Item
4), based on her February 2015 credit report (Item 5). She told the investigator that she
would research the delinquent debts and resolve them.
Applicant’s Answer states that she will pay SOR debts 1.a and 1.g-1.j by the end
of June 2016;  that she has repayment plans for SOR debts 1.d-1.f, that she will make a3
repayment plan for SOR debt 1.b, and that SOR debt 1.c has been resolved. She
provided no corroborating evidence for these claims.
Applicant attributes her financial problems to her unemployment periods, and her
father’s unemployment. However, she has not provided the details that would establish
the impact those unemployments had on her finances. Moreover, she has documented
no contacts with her creditors since her September 2014 clearance application, her
January 2015 interview, her May 2016 Answer, or her June 2016 FORM.
Applicant provided no budget or personal financial statement indicating her
financial situation. She has not documented any credit or financial counseling. She
provided no work or character references, or evidence of civic or community
involvement.
Applicant previously told the investigator that she would pay the parking tickets (SOR 1.i-1.j) by August 2015;3
that she would pay the medical bill at SOR 1.a by September 2015; and that she would pay the other medical
bills (SOR 1.f-1.g) by October 2015.
2
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to sensitive information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(d). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of eligibility for a public trust position. Considering the SOR allegations and the
evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).
Trustworthiness decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s public trust position. The
Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the
SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
Government’s case.  Because no one has a right to a public trust position, the applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to sensitive information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of
financial difficulties that have remained unaddressed since at least January 2015.5
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. 
given that she has documented no action to address them.  Although two of her6
unemployments were due to circumstances beyond her control, she has not
documented that she took responsible action to address her debts before the SOR was
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history5
of not meeting financial obligations;
¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
3
issued.  Applicant has had no credit or financial counseling, and there is no7
documentation any of the debts are being resolved.  Her lack of documentation does8
not constitute a good-faith effort to address her debts.  Accordingly, I conclude9
Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-j: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue eligibility for a public trust
position for Applicant. Eligibility for a public trust position denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge
¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem . . . and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise9
resolve debts.
4