1 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
)
[Redacted] ) ADP Case No. 17-03763 
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision on Remand 
______________ 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
This case involves trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.  
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted an application for a public trust position on June 10, 2016. 
On November 20, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent her a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), citing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. DOD acted under 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all adjudicative decisions on or after 
June 8, 2017. 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 16, 2018, and requested a decision on 
the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s 
written case on March 30, 2018. On May 15, 2018, a complete copy of the file of 
relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file 
01/04/2019
 
2 
 
objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s 
evidence. She received the FORM on May 31, 2018, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibit 
(AX) A. The case was assigned to me on September 6, 2018. On September 20, 2018, I 
issued a decision denying eligibility for a public trust position.  
 
 Applicant appealed my adverse decision, and the Appeal Board remanded my 
decision on December 14, 2018. The Board determined that my statement that 
Applicant “submitted no documentary evidence of payments, payment plans, disputes, 
or other resolution of any of the debts alleged in the SOR” was erroneous. The Board 
noted that Applicant’s response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) included a 
credit report reflecting a number of debts that were currently under dispute. It also noted 
that Applicant’s answer to the SOR included a document (Attachment to Answer) 
reflecting that the two student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i were not delinquent. 
The Board concluded that my findings regarding the absence of documentation were 
erroneous, and it remanded the case “for correction of the errors and issuance of a new 
decision in accordance with the Directive.” 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted all the allegations. Her 
admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 36-year-old licensed practical nurse (LPN) employed by a federal 
contractor since July 2016. She was licensed after completing school in June 2009. She 
was employed in the private sector from December 2009 to October 2014. She worked 
part time from December 2009 to March 2010, was unemployed from March to June 
2010, worked full time from June 2010 to February 2013, left by mutual agreement, and 
was unemployed from to February 2013 to August 2013. She was employed by a 
medical doctor from August 2013 to October 2014 and left by mutual agreement. She 
was unemployed for two months and then worked for a federal contractor from 
November 2014 to March 2016, when she was fired for tardiness and absenteeism. She 
was unemployed until she was hired for her current position. (FORM Item 2 at 11-17; 
FORM Item 3 at 2, 12.) She has never married and has no children. She has never held 
a security clearance or eligibility for a public trust position.  
 
 The SOR alleges 18 delinquent debts, totaling about $37,366. The debts are 
reflected in credit reports from June 2016 and September 2017 and the summary of a 
personal subject interview (PSI) conducted in March 2017. (FORM Items 3, 4 and 5.) 
The debts are a $10,209 indebtedness to the U.S. government related to disability 
payments, a delinquent car loan, three delinquent student loans, three delinquent 
medical bills, and ten miscellaneous consumer debts. In the March 2017 PSI, Applicant 
admitted the delinquent student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i and promised to 
bring them up to date by January 2018. (FORM Item 5 at 9-10.) 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her application for a public trust position (GX 1) unless 
otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
3 
 
In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted all the debts and stated that 
payment plans were in place for two student loans (SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i). She also 
stated that a telecommunications bill had been paid (SOR ¶ 1.p), and that she had 
payment plans in place or was trying to negotiate settlements for the rest of the debts 
alleged in the SOR. She attached a document to her answer, reflecting that the student 
loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i are “in repayment,” and that the accounts were not 
delinquent as of January 25, 2018. (Attachment to Answer.) 
 
 Both student loans were delinquent when Applicant was interviewed by a security 
investigator in March 2017. (FORM Item 3 at 10-11.) The credit report from September 
2017 reflected that both loans were still delinquent and that the date of last activity on 
both loans was in November 2013, when they were assigned to the government. 
(FORM Item 5 at 2.) The Attachment to Answer reflects a disbursement date of 
September 19, 2017 for both loans. It does not reflect when the loans became current, 
nor does it indicate whether they became current through voluntary payments or 
involuntary action such as garnishment or diversion of tax refunds. Although the loan 
servicer reflected in the Attachment to Answer was different from the loan servicer 
alleged in the SOR, the amounts were almost identical. Accordingly, I find that the debts 
in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i were not delinquent as of January 25, 2018.  
 
 Applicant’s answer to the SOR did dispute any of the debts. The credit report 
from September 2017 (FORM Item 5) did not reflect any disputed accounts. In her 
response to the FORM, she submitted documentary evidence that two student loans not 
alleged in the SOR were current. She also submitted a credit report from June 2018, 
reflecting that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.b, 1.d-1.h, and 1.j-1.n were currently 
under dispute, but the credit report does not reflect the basis for the disputes or the 
dates when they were disputed. (AX A.) 
 
Policies 
 
 I adhere to and incorporate by reference the statement of policies in my original 
decision.  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18:  
 
Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to 
protect classified or sensitive information. . . . An individual who is 
financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or 
otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . . 
 
4 
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise sensitive or classified information to raise money. It encompasses 
concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to 
protecting sensitive or classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible 
may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding 
sensitive or classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 
2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions and the documentary evidence in the FORM establish the 
following potentially disqualifying conditions: 
 
AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; 
 
AG ¶ 19(b): unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; 
and 
 
AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations.  
 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem 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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(c): the individual has received or is receiving financial 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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and. 
 
AG ¶ 20(e): the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy 
of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
 AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(c) are not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts 
are numerous and recent. She presented no evidence of circumstances making 
 
5 
 
recurrence of her financial problems unlikely. Her underemployment from December 
2009 to March 2010 and unemployment from March to June 2010 were conditions 
beyond her control. She submitted no evidence of the circumstances under which she 
left jobs by mutual agreement in February 2013 and October 2014. Her unemployment 
from March to July 2016 was due to her tardiness and absenteeism. Except for the 
evidence pertaining to the student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i, she presented 
no documentary evidence of payments, contacts with creditors, or attempts to resolve 
her delinquent debts. She submitted no evidence showing when or by what means the 
student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i became current. She submitted no 
evidence of financial counseling.  
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) is not established. Applicant submitted no evidence of payment 
agreements, payments, or disputes regarding the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, 1.e-
1.h, and 1.j-1.r. The Attachment to Answer reflects that the two student loans alleged in 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i were current as of January 25, 2018, but she submitted no evidence 
showing how or when the loans became current. Whatever voluntary action she may 
have taken to resolve them occurred after she was confronted with them by a security 
investigator in March 2017 and realized that they were an impediment to obtaining a 
public trust position. Evidence of past irresponsibility is not mitigated by payment of 
debts only under pressure of qualifying for a public trust position. See ISCR Case No. 
16-01211 (App. Bd. May 30, 2018) citing ISCR Case No. 15-03208 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 
7, 2017). 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) is not established. Applicant did not deny any of the debts alleged in 
the SOR when she responded to it. To the contrary, she admitted every debt alleged. 
AX A reflects that Applicant recently disputed every debt alleged in the SOR, except the 
delinquent car loan alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and the two student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 
1.d and 1.i, but she provided no documentary evidence establishing the basis for her 
disputes. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 I adhere to and incorporate by reference the whole-person analysis set out in my 
original decision. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under 
Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I 
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her 
delinquent debts. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I have reconsidered my formal findings in accordance with the Appeal Board 
remand. My findings on the allegations in the SOR are as follows: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.n:    Against Applicant 
 
6 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the 
United States to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility is denied.  
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge