DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ADP Case No. 16-01838
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Ross Hyams, 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 29 October 2016, 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 16 March 2017, when Applicant’s Response to the FORM was due.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-7.1
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). The SOR was issued under the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. However, 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. My decision is the same under both guidelines.
1
Applicant provided no additional evidence. DOHA assigned the case to me 1 October
2017.
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.i-1.k. She is a
48-year-old claims lead sponsored for a public trust position by a defense contractor, for
whom she has worked since June 1996. She had a favorable trustworthiness
determination in August 2004. She has been married since 1988, and has two grown
children.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (Items 3-7) establish, nine delinquent
debts totaling over $8,000. Applicant admits all but $1,100 in delinquent medical
accounts (SOR 1.i-1.k) on the grounds that they do not appear on the November 2016
credit report she submitted with her Answer. She also admits failing to timely file her
2012 and 2013 Federal income tax returns. The debts consist of $4,200 unpaid Federal
tax, $2,900 in two charged-off consumer credit accounts, and six unpaid medical debts
totaling about $1,400.
Applicant disclosed her failure to file her Federal tax returns, SOR debts 1.c-1.e
and 1.k, and some debts not alleged in the SOR on her April 2015 trustworthiness
application (Item 4). She discussed these debts, along with the remaining SOR debts
during an August 2015 interview with a Government investigator (Item 5), based on her
May 2015 credit report (Item 6). She told the investigator that she had obtained a credit
report in February 2015 to complete her trustworthiness application. She specifically
discussed, and acknowledged as hers, SOR debts 1.f-1.j. She stated that she had
entered into repayment plans on some of the debts, and made a couple of payments on
each.3
Applicant’s Answer documented that she filed her 2012 and 2013 Federal income
tax returns in April 2015 (Answer, A and B), and paid the Internal Revenue Service over
$7,000 for tax year 2011 (Answer C).   She paid SOR debts 1.d-1.e in November 20164
(Answer D and E),  and paid SOR debts 1.f-1h. in December 2016 (Answer, F-H). She5
took no action on the three debts that did not appear on her November 2016 credit
reports (Answer H).
Applicant attributes her financial problems to her husband’s unemployment in
2008. However, she has not provided the details that would establish the impact that 
However, she never documented those payments, and the payment records she submitted with her Answer3
show payments-in-full of the documented debts.
Which she paid by garnishment between April and October 2015.4
Technically, she did not document that she had paid SOR debt 1.d, only that she had withdrawn the exact5
amount of the debt from her checking account on the date claimed. However, no harm is done by giving her
the benefit of the doubt.
2
unemployment had on her finances. Moreover, she provided no explanation for her
failure to file her Federal income tax returns, or her failure to maintain the repayment
plans she claimed to have put in place during her May 2015 interview. Instead the
record reflects that she took no action to address her situation with the IRS until April
2015, when she was completing her trustworthiness application, and did not resolve
SOR debts 1.d-1.h until after she received the SOR.
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.
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.6
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
3
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 remained largely unaddressed since at least April 2015.
Moreover, she failed, without explanation, to timely file her Federal income tax returns
for 2012-2013.7
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. 
given that she has provided no details about her husband’s unemployment or any
subsequent return to work.  Although the unemployment is a circumstance beyond her8
control, she has not documented that she took responsible action to address her
financial problems before she submitted her trustworthiness application (IRS)  or before9
the SOR was issued (remaining debts).  Applicant has had no credit or financial10
counseling, and her efforts to resolve her tax issues were spurred by her interview and
her efforts to resolve her debts were spurred by the SOR.  Paying her debts on the eve11
of submitting her Answer does not constitute a good-faith effort to address her debts.12
Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-k: Against Applicant
19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history7
of not meeting financial obligations; (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income
tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required;
¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that8
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amoount9
owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and10
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem . . . and there are clear indications11
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 otherwise12
resolve debts.
4
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
5