1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 17-03503 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Allison Marie, 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 failed to present sufficient credible information to mitigate financial 
trustworthiness concerns. She presented sufficient information to mitigate alcohol 
consumption trustworthiness concerns. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 
On February 5, 2016, 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 4) Applicant was interviewed by an agent from the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM) on October 18, 2016, December 5, 2016, and May 
27, 2017. (Item 5, 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.  
 
2 
 
On October 23, 2017, the DOD CAF issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) for financial and alcohol trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F and 
Guideline G. DOD took the action under DOD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DOD 
Personnel Security Program (PSP), and the adjudicative guidelines effective on June 8, 
2017.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on November 20, 2017 (Item 2). She admitted four 
and denied two of the six allegations of financial trustworthiness concern. Under alcohol 
consumption, Applicant admitted that she was treated for an alcohol-induced liver 
disorder in 2015 and was advised by her doctor not to continue to consume alcohol. 
She denies the allegation that she continues to consume alcohol in spite of her doctor’s 
recommendation. Applicant requested a decision on the record.  
 
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on February 12, 
2018. (Item 10). Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on May 
23, 2018, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to 
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. (Item 11) Applicant provided 
additional information in response to the FORM on June 6, 2018. (Item 12) On October 
22, 2018, Department Counsel noted that she had no objection to consideration of the 
additional material. (Item 13) I was assigned the case on July 26, 2018. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the PSI (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 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 55 years old. She married in 1981, but her husband passed away in 1993. 
She has one adult son. She has been employed by a company managing health care 
for DOD since 1999. (Item 4, e-QIP, dated February 5, 2016; Item 5, PSI, dated October 
18, 2016)  
 
The SOR alleges and credit reports (Item 6, dated February 17, 2016; Item 7, 
dated March 22, 2017; Item 8, dated January 11, 2018) confirm the following six 
delinquent debts: a student loan in collection for $22,048 (SOR 1.a); a charge account 
in collection past due for $221, on a total balance of $1,334 (SOR 1.b); a credit card 
account in collection for $1,300 (SOR 1.c); another credit card debt in collection for 
$1,299 (SOR 1.d); a cable debt in collection for $365 (SOR 1.e); and a television 
3 
 
service debt in collection for $146 (SOR 1.f). In her response to the SOR, Applicant 
provided sufficient documentation to establish that she paid the two debts totaling $511 
at SOR 1.e and 1.f. The total amount of the debt she admitted for the remaining four 
debts is $24,868 with the student loan debt at SOR 1.a, accounting for over 85% of the 
debt.  
 
 The alcohol consumption trustworthiness concern alleges that in December 
2015, Applicant received medical treatment for an alcohol induced liver disorder 
diagnosed as alcohol abuse. (SOR 2.a) It was further alleged that Applicant continued 
to consume alcohol notwithstanding her doctor recommending that she abstain from 
alcohol consumption. (SOR 2.b)  
 
 Applicant reported the student loan debt on her e-QIP. In the PSI, Applicant 
noted that the student loan dates from her schooling in 1981. Since then, she had her 
pay garnished and made other payments on the debt until early 2010. She provided no 
documents to verify her assertions. She has not made any payments on the student 
loans since the account went delinquent in January 2010. In her response to the FORM, 
Applicant attached a request, dated May 18, 2018, that she submitted to have her 
student loan account deferred because of economic hardship. She has not received a 
response to her request.  
 
In the PSI, Applicant also reported that she had a bank credit card account in 
collection. She stated that she opened the account in 2011 and used it to charge over 
$1,000 in general purchases. She does not recall the balance and the date when the 
card went into default. There are two debts listed in the SOR that could relate to this 
account. Both are with the same creditor and for the approximate amount Applicant 
reported as the amount she charged on the credit card. While Applicant did not claim 
that the debts are duplicates, I find from the information on the credit reports that the 
debts at SOR 1.c and 1.d are duplications. Accordingly, I find for Applicant as to 
allegation 1.d. Applicant stated that she would contact creditors and make payments as 
soon as she could. Applicant did not present any additional information on any 
payments made on this debt.  
 
At the PSI, Applicant discussed some other SOR debts. She knew some debts 
were charged off. She did not know she had to make payments on charged off 
accounts. She also reported that her present financial situation is fair and she is current 
paying her bills. She lives within her means and intends to pay her debt when she is 
able. She has not received financial counseling or used a debt consolidation service. 
(Item 5) 
 
In her response to the FORM (Item 13), Applicant noted that she has no 
delinquent utility accounts. She further noted that her financial issues happened a long 
time ago, are unlikely to recur, and are being actively resolved. The only document 
Applicant presented in her response to the FORM was a May 18, 2018 request for 
deferment of the student loans for economic hardship reasons. (Item 12) 
 
4 
 
 Applicant’s medical records show that she reported moderate to heavy alcohol 
use to her doctor in 2015 and 2016. In December 2015, Applicant was advised by her 
doctor to seek alcohol counseling and treatment because of elevated liver enzymes. 
(Item 9 at 92) She voluntarily received treatment for three days in December 2015. 
(Item 9 at 67) Applicant was diagnosed with chronic alcohol abuse and alcohol-induced 
liver disorder, and was advised of the importance of discontinuing alcohol use. (Item 9 
at 88) The medical records do not contain a clear statement from Applicant’s doctor that 
she should not consume alcohol. In May 2017 during a physical examination, Applicant 
reported her consumption of alcohol as an occasional glass of wine. There were no 
reported alcohol-related incidents either at work or away from work. 
 
In her response to the SOR, Applicant presented a letter from her doctor stating 
that there is no indication in her medical records to suggest that she is not capable of 
performing her present duties. The letter notes that she has sound judgment and no 
issues concerning substance abuse. (Exhibit C, Response to SOR) In her FORM 
response, Applicant emphasized that her alcohol consumption problems have been 
resolved, and she abstinent from alcohol consumption. 
 
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 
grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
5 
 
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 student 
loan and consumer debts. Her delinquent debts are established by credit reports and 
her admissions in the e-QIP and her response to the SOR. The debts pose a 
trustworthiness concern raising 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 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;  
6 
 
(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 student loan debt 
deliberately and freely to finance her education. She also deliberately, freely, and 
indiscriminately used consumer credit cards to purchase items. The financing of her 
education through student loans and use of credit cards are not unusual circumstances 
or beyond Applicant’s control. Applicant’s debts are numerous, have not been resolved 
so they are recent, and they were not incurred under circumstances making recurrence 
unlikely. 
 
 Applicant presented evidence that she resolved two small consumer debts for 
television and cable service. Her student loans date from 1981, and went delinquent in 
2010. She presented a May 2018 request for deferment of the student loans for 
financial hardship reasons. The submission of a request for deferment over eight years 
after a debt became delinquent is not acting responsibly under the circumstances. 
Applicant did not present any evidence of her efforts to address and resolve her 
delinquent credit card debts. She stated in 2016 that she would contact the creditors. 
Two years later, she did not present any information of any arrangements, plans, or 
payments to the creditors.  
 
Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. Applicant is not required to be debt-free. 
All that is required is that Applicant act responsibly given her financial circumstances. 
Applicant must establish that she has a reasonable plan to resolve financial problems, 
and that she has taken significant action to implement that plan. Applicant’s plan must 
show a systematic method of handling debts, and meaningful track record of debt 
payment. A meaningful track record of debt payment can be established by evidence of 
actual debt payments. A promise to pay delinquent debts is not a substitute for a track 
record of paying debts in a timely manner and acting in a financially responsible 
manner. Applicant only presented evidence of the payment of two small debts.  
 
 Applicant did not provide sufficient details about what she plans to do to address 
the remaining debts alleged in the SOR. She did not state that she had a plan to pay 
her debts. She did not provide documentation to show proof of payments, 
correspondence to or from the creditors to establish maintenance of contact, copies of 
debt disputes, evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, or other evidence of 
7 
 
debt resolution. She only presented a document requesting deferment of her student 
loans sent eight years after the loans went into default. There is insufficient evidence to 
establish why Applicant was unable to make any progress resolving his debts. There is 
insufficient assurance that her financial problems are being resolved, are under control, 
and will not recur in the future.  
 
 Applicant’s failure to establish payment of or a plan to pay her SOR debts 
student loan and credit card 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. Her lack of reasonable and responsible 
actions toward her finances is a strong indication that she will not protect and safeguard 
sensitive information. Based on all of the financial information, I conclude that Applicant 
has not mitigated trustworthiness concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption is a trustworthiness concern because it often 
leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and 
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. (AG ¶ 21)  
 
Applicant was treated for excessive alcohol consumption in December 2015 and 
advised by her doctor not to consume alcohol. There are no reported alcohol-related 
incidents. Available evidence shows Applicant continues to consume moderate levels of 
alcohol. This information is sufficient to establish the following Alcohol Consumption 
Disqualifying Condition under AG ¶ 22: 
 
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional 
(e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social 
worker) of alcohol use disorder;  
 
(e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; and 
 
(f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment 
recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. 
 
 Available evidence shows that Applicant was treated for an alcohol-related 
medical problem in December 2015. She was advised of the importance of 
discontinuing alcohol use. The file does not contain information concerning Applicant’s 
treatment for any other alcohol-related problem. The file contains information that 
Applicant continued to consume some level of alcohol.  
 
I considered the following Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 
23: 
 
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or 
8 
 
does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, 
or good judgment;  
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol 
use, provides evidence of action taken to overcome this problem, and has 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or 
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;  
 
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or treatment program, has 
no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory 
progress in a treatment program; and 
 
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along 
with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established 
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with 
treatment recommendations.  
 
While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or 
sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct 
affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful 
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of 
time has passed without evidence of an alcohol issue, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation.  
 
 Applicant presented evidence to establish that she does not have an alcohol-
related issue. There is no evidence in Applicant’s medical records that she was advised 
not to consume alcohol. There is evidence that she was advised of the importance of 
discontinuing alcohol use because of her medical condition. While she admits that she 
continues to consume some level of alcohol, she presented information from her doctor 
that she is capable of performing her current job, has sound judgment, and no issue 
with substance abuse. Accordingly, Applicant presented sufficient evidence to show a 
change of circumstances. She established that she is controlling her alcohol 
consumption impulses. If she had an alcohol-related issue, she has shown that she has 
been reformed or rehabilitated. I find that Applicant mitigated trustworthiness concerns 
for alcohol consumption. 
 
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 
9 
 
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. I considered Applicant’s 
approximately 20 years of service to a defense contractor managing sensitive medical 
information. However, Applicant did not provide sufficient credible documentary 
information to establish that she took or plans to take reasonable and responsible action 
to resolve her financial obligations. In requesting an administrative determination, 
Applicant chose to rely on the written record. In doing so, she must sufficiently 
supplement the record with relevant and material facts regarding her finances, 
adequately articulate her actions and positions, and provide facts to mitigate the 
trustworthiness concerns. 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 provide sufficient evidence of her plans. 
 
In short, the file as a whole does not contain sufficient information to mitigate 
financial trustworthiness concerns. Applicant did not establish a reasonable plan to 
resolve her delinquent debts. She did not show that she took sufficient actions to 
implement the plan, and she did not establish that she is managing her financial 
obligations within her resources. However, Applicant established that she does not have 
an alcohol consumption trustworthiness concern. Overall, Applicant has not established 
that she can be trusted to manage sensitive information. 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.c:   Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.d – 1.f:   For Applicant 
 
 
 
10 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline G:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.b:   For 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