DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ADP Case No. 16-03193
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, 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 7 December 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 27 March 2017, when Applicant’s Response to the FORM was due.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-5.1
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 denied the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.a, 1.d-1.e, and
1.g. She is a 48-year-old customer service representative sponsored for a public trust
position by a defense contractor, for whom she has worked since May 1998. She had a
favorable trustworthiness determination in the past, but provided no dates. She is a
divorced mother of an adult daughter and a seven-year-old son.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (Items 3-5) establish, 29 delinquent
debts totaling nearly $21,000. Applicant denies all but about $12,000 in delinquent debt. 
She denies 22 medical debts because “[a]ccording to my most recent credit reports, this
is not a valid debt.”  She asserts the same claim for the SOR 1.c cell phone debt. She3
claims to have disputed the automobile debt at SOR 1.a. The debts consist of two
delinquent automobile loans totaling $13,500, 24 delinquent medical accounts totaling
$5,800, a $1,200 delinquent cell phone account, an unpaid automobile insurance
account, and a delinquent consumer credit account.
Applicant disclosed SOR debts 1.a-1.c and 1.e, as well generic medical bills
totaling over $4,000 on her November 2015 trustworthiness application (Item 2). She
discussed all the SOR debts during a May 2016 interview with a Government
investigator (Item 3), based on her December 2015 credit report (Item 4). She told the
investigator that she was paying $25 monthly on her medical bills. She had not taken
action to resolve the remaining debts.
Applicant’s Answer provided no corroboration of her claimed resolution of the
debts; no documents of her claimed dispute on the automobile loan, no proof that the
medical and other debts were not valid, and no proof of the few claimed payments.
 Applicant attributes her financial problems to the birth of her son in July 2009
(from which date most of her medical debts originate) and her May 2014 divorce from
her husband. However, she provided no evidence of any efforts to resolve her medical
debts between 2009 and 2014, or of any efforts since her divorce.
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.
She failed to indicate what recent credit reports she was relying upon in January 2017, and did not provide3
copies of those credit reports, or otherwise explain what entries on the credit reports indicated that the debts
were not valid.
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 remained largely unaddressed since at least November 2015.5
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. 
given that she has provided no details about her medical bills or her divorce.  Although6
those issues may be circumstances beyond her control, she has not documented that
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
she took responsible action to address her financial problems.  Applicant has had no7
credit or financial counseling; she has documented no efforts to resolve her debts.8
Moreover, she has obviously not engaged in a  good-faith effort to address her debts.9
Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-cc: 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