1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 17-04321 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: David F. Hayes, 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 credible information to mitigate financial 
trustworthiness concerns. 
Statement of the Case 
 
 
On March 1, 2017, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a public trust position to work 
for a defense contractor. (Item 2) Applicant was interviewed by an agent from the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM) on August 1, 2017. (Item 3, Summary of Personal 
Subject Interview (PSI)) After reviewing the results of the background investigation, the 
Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudication Facility (DOD CAF) could not make 
the affirmative findings required to grant Applicant access to sensitive information.  
 
On January 9, 2018, the DOD CAF issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) for financial trustworthiness concerns. DOD took the action under DOD Dir. 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, Security 
Executive Agent directive 4, and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective “for all 
covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017.  
2 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 2, 2018. She admitted nine allegations 
(SOR 1.b -1.g, and 1.p to 1.r), denied nine allegations (SOR 1.a, and 1.h – 1.o). She 
requested a decision on the record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 1) Department Counsel 
submitted the Government’s written case on March 16, 2018. (Item 6). Applicant 
received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on March 30, 2018, and was 
provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or 
mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant provided additional information in 
response to the FORM on April 25, 2018. (Item 7) On May 2, 2018, Department 
Counsel noted that he had no objection to consideration of the additional material. (Item 
8) I was assigned the case on June 13, 2018. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the PSI (Item 3) 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 did not raise 
any objection to consideration of the PSI when she responded to the FORM. 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 52 years old. She received a bachelor’s degree in September 2009, and 
has additional college credits from the same on-line university where she earned her 
bachelor’s degree. She has been employed as a psychiatric technician for a DOD 
contractor at a military hospital since June 2012. Prior to that employment, she worked 
for a civilian psychiatrist from June 2010 until January 2012. She was unemployed from 
January 2012 to May 2012. She received unemployment compensation and attended 
school or was a stay-at-home mother when unemployed. Applicant married in January 
2000 and divorced in May 2012. She has been living with a cohabitant since December 
2016. She has four children, only one residing with Applicant. She was initially granted 
access to sensitive information in September 2012. (Item 2; Item 3)  
 
The SOR alleges and credit reports (Item 4, dated April 7, 2017, and Item 5, 
dated November 28, 2017) confirm the delinquent debts in the SOR. The alleged SOR 
delinquent debts consist of ten past-due student loans totaling approximately $18,000 
(SOR 1.a, 1.f, and 1.h to 1.o); a charged-off car loan for $3,762 (SOR 1.b); three credit 
card debts either charged-off or in collection for $2,964 (SOR 1.c), $1,905 (SOR 1.d), 
and $1,524 (SOR 1.e); a judgment on a credit card debt for $2,724 (SOR 1.g); two 
medical accounts in collection for $6,268 (SOR 1.p) and $3,977 (SOR 1.q); and a 
television cable service debt for $274 (SOR 1.r).The amount of the delinquent debt as 
reported in the SOR is approximately $41,400. It is noted that documents provided by 
Applicant indicate that her delinquent student loans are in excess of $92,000. 
3 
 
 Applicant listed the delinquent automobile loan (SOR 1.b) and two credit card 
debts (SOR 1.c and 1.e) on her e-QIP noting that she was unable to pay the debt 
because the financial part of her divorce was not settled. Applicant reported in the PSI 
that when she and her husband divorced, he took the car that had been paid and left 
her with two cars that required payments. She struggled to make the payments. After 
missing some payments, the car noted in SOR 1.b was repossessed. She did not 
provide any information on her efforts to contact the creditor or make payment 
arrangements. As to the credit cards, Applicant stated that she was making payments 
on the cards but became overwhelmed with other expenses. Paying the credit cards 
was not a priority. She prioritized the purchase of necessity (home, food, utilities) over 
making payments on the delinquent debts. Applicant did not present documents to 
establish that she has a plan to pay theses debts, or any efforts she made to pay the 
debts.  
 
Applicant told the security investigator in the PSI that between 2011 and 2013 
she consolidated her student loans in an effort to make payment easier. Applicant 
thought all of her student loans were consolidated, but learned some were not 
consolidated. She applied to have these loans consolidated with the other student 
loans. She also applied for and received approval for her student loan payments to be 
income-based and she is not required to make payments at this time. She also applied 
for loan forgiveness but has not received any response to her request. Applicant did not 
present any documents to verify her information. 
 
Applicant told the security investigator that she has no knowledge of many of the 
delinquent debts in the SOR. She did note the medical account at SOR 1.q was when 
she had an emergency room visit and did not have health insurance. She told the 
security investigator that she would look into all of the unknown accounts, and that she 
plans to pay her debts when financially able. Her student loans are her first priority. She 
stated that she is current with all of her other everyday financial obligations. She told the 
security investigator that she no longer has any credit cards. The security investigator 
told Applicant that she could provide any documents concerning her debts. She stated 
that she would attempt to gather such financial documents. Applicant has not presented 
sufficient documents to verify her claims.  
 
Applicant in her reply to the SOR provided documents to verify that all of her 
student loans were consolidated with the student loan servicing company noted at SOR 
1.f. There were also other student loans listed for graduate study. The total amount of 
the student loan that were consolidated is approximately $92,000. The account history 
provided with her reply shows some small payments on the student loans made in 2017 
and early 2018. While Applicant did not present other payment information, she noted 
that the consolidated loans were deferred because she is in school. Applicant did not 
present documents establishing and verifying that the student loans are in deferment. 
She also repeated that she was waiting for a decision on the equitable distribution of the 
marriage debts with her husband. She did not provide any documents to verify the 
status of the action to equitably distribute the marital debt. It is noted that the divorce 
was in 2012 and the property issues had not been resolved according to Applicant six 
years later. She stated her intention to resolve her debts when the equitable distribution 
4 
 
of the marital property was completed. She did not present any receipts for payments 
made on any of her debts. She alleges that the debts are SOR 1.c and 1.g are duplicate 
debts. I find that these debts are duplicates since they are for a similar amount to the 
same collection company. 
 
In her reply to the FORM (Item 7), Applicant did not provide any documents but 
wrote that she understood she had debts and was trying to pay a little at a time. Her 
husband had been the sole financial provider in the family and she was unprepared 
when they separated. She intends to pay her debts but can only afford small payments 
and one debt at a time. She was still waiting for a court date to determine the equitable 
distribution of the marital property. She requested that the marital debts in her name be 
shared with her former husband. Since the divorce was granted, she has struggled to 
provide for her four children and her grandchild. She has not received alimony and only 
one child support payment. Her former husband pays the mortgage but she struggles to 
pay the utilities, feed the children, and provide necessities. She choses to provide for 
her children rather than pay on debts acquired during the marriage. She is trying to 
resolve her debt but she will not be able to pay everything until the equitable distribution 
of the marital property is completed.  
 
Policies 
 
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(a), 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. 
 
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 the 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 
5 
 
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, and may indicate poor self-control, 
lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulation, raising 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 or otherwise questionable 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 unresolved 
consumer and student loan debts. Her delinquent debts are established by credit 
reports, her admissions in the e-QIP, and her response to the SOR. The debts pose a 
trustworthiness concern raising the following Financial Consideration Disqualifying 
Conditions under AG ¶ 19: 
 
 (a) inability to satisfy debts; 
 
 (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and 
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
 
 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 
6 
 
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, a death, divorce, or 
separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity 
theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the individual has received or is receiving counseling for the problem 
from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit 
counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is 
being resolved or is under control; and 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay the 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 The mitigating conditions only partially apply. Applicant incurred debt when she 
and husband divorced in 2012, and she did not have his income to assist her in paying 
her debts. These conditions are beyond her control. Her husband had been the primary 
source of income when they were married. Except for small payments on her student 
loans, she did not provide any documents to show that she has a plan to pay her debts 
and has taken steps to implement that plan. Applicant did not present information that 
she contacted her creditors to arrange payment plans, or that she received financial 
counseling. Applicant’s debts are numerous and recent, and they were incurred under 
circumstances making recurrence possible. The only information Applicant provided 
was that she is waiting for a decision on the equitable distribution of the marital debts 
with her husband. It is likely she will continue to accumulate delinquent debt since she is 
still providing for her children. She presented no information on her plans to live within 
her means. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Applicant has a reasonable 
and adequate plan to resolve her financial problems and that she is ready and willing to 
adhere to a payment plan. Thus, Applicant did not present evidence of a good-faith 
effort to pay delinquent debts, and there are no indication that Applicant’s financial 
problems will be resolved within a reasonable period.  
 
 The record does not contain corroborating or substantiating documentation of 
Applicant’s efforts to mitigate and resolve her financial problems. In requesting an 
administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the written record. She did not 
provide sufficient evidence to supplement the record with relevant and material facts 
regarding her circumstances, articulate her position, and mitigate the financial 
trustworthiness concerns. She did not provide adequate credible information regarding 
her efforts to address her delinquent debts. She did not present a sufficiently credible 
plan of how and when she planned to resolve her debts. Applicant’s lack of reasonable 
payments on her debts, and her failure to provide information on a responsible plan to 
pay her debts shows that she has not acted reasonably and honestly with regard to her 
financial duties and obligations. I find that she did not act responsibly and did not make 
a good-faith effort to pay her debts. Her financial problems still cast doubt on her current 
7 
 
reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment. Applicant‘s information is not sufficient to 
establish that she acted responsibly under the circumstances and that her finances are 
under control. In short, the information provided by Applicant contains insufficient 
evidence to determine that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, or 
otherwise resolved her debts. Applicant has not mitigated financial trustworthiness 
concerns. 
  
 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(d):  
 
(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 credible and reasonable plan to resolve her financial problems and that she 
has taken significant action to implement that plan. Applicant did not establish a 
reasonable plan to resolve her delinquent debts. She did not show that she has taken 
sufficient actions to implement the plan, and she did not establish that she is managing 
her financial obligations within her resources. Accordingly, she did not establish 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 position of trust. For all these reasons, Applicant’s 
eligibility for a public trust 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 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.b:   Against Applicant 
8 
 
 Subparagraph 1.c:    For Applicant (Duplicate) 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.d - 1.r:   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