ÿWPCu MAp·¤aÆvgýªvq6lV£ømî <½›×ÑÑg.^¹¾ÙV•V—¦Q*#@,"gÝÇ3Š„œuÚ‰XÄA@HÉųE8¤bëÞjb©@nH¢47ÎNdù¡ùO¨w‰[hÔüá*` ã1H¤ ¨2K}¢Š€k½/dϤoÀßJ$ÑfÐvÝÏ'Áev4^m%äÕßS‡øå ñ8*¨X/2 °äËsE3nëjñ n¡ÖLGŸxÂ÷7ÓEôh“·U‰å&2‹˜¶€æž«KÐs½ÝL¿ƒÄ[ Ú°³¼/Æq¡ËùNOx³Ê4Úú`BÖfþ~7ªÂQ@îcáýš€’hf¸·>£>"ØîôUj¨;ˆSÁK¯Ø±Í «¦|µk•^žÎ2eòBxl¬Ò¿@j·-­æ¥\É+>¤W‹­Àèzâkì„5-®¨•=ŽãTY9ˆËιˆn¬8ï0Áþša%ÀÉ…ƒ"(ÏJÃXËäÿå3;^Æ‹Øà»îÚÖØ Â@ V BX˜HP LaserJet 400 color M451dn UPD PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUENl•Jà„7JntFold3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Y(2Îl$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô”òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¸Ý ƒÎl$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô”òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApplicant€also€contends€that€the€Judge€denied€him€certain€rights€under€the€U.S.€Constitution.€€However,€theÐ ° Ðauthority€of€Hearing€Office€Judges€as€well€as€of€Administrative€Judge€members€of€the€Appeal€Board€is€limited€toÐ tÄ Ðapplying€the€provisions€of€the€Directive.€€A€DOHA€proceeding€is€not€a€proper€venue€to€address€claims€that€an€applicantððsÐ 8ˆ ÐConstitutional€rights€have€been€violated.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€08„05344€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Feb.€3,€2010).€€€€ LÝ ƒÎl$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ô”òXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApplicantððs€argument€has€some€merit.€€We€note€the€Judgeððs€comment€that€if€Applicant€could€get€a€statementÐ ° Ðto€the€effect€that€the€debt€in€question€is€time„barred€his€Guideline€F€concerns€would€be€mitigated.€€A€Judge€has€noÐ tÄ Ðauthority€to€promise€an€applicant€a€clearance€or€to€advise€an€applicant€on€the€quantum€of€evidence€that€would€mitigateÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€concerns€in€his€or€her€case.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ô_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€14„02806€at€3,€n.1€(App.€Bd.€Sep.€9,€2015).€€In€addition,€actionsÐ üL  Ðin€a€clearance€adjudication€may€have€significant€ramifications€in€other€aspects€of€an€applicantððs€life. dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€€Guideline€B;€Guideline€C;€Guideline€FÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€€Applicantððs€argument€that€by€communicating€with€his€creditor€as€the€Judge€envisionedÐ ˆØ Ðhe€could€have€reaffirmed€his€debts€is€moot,€in€that€he€never€did€undertook€that€course€of€action.€Ð tÄ ÐAny€error€by€the€Judge€was€harmless€in€that€it€did€not€affect€the€outcome.€€Adverse€decisionÐ `° Ðaffirmed.Ð L œ ÐÌCASE€NO:€€15„03786.a1Ð $ t ÐÌDATE:€€04/21/2017Ð ü L  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDATE:€April€21,€2017Ð À  ÐÌÌÌÒ.؉ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€Y) °°xdE°ogAßÐ pÀ ÐÌIn€Re:Ð k» ÐÌà  à„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìà  à€Ð / ÐÌApplicant€for€Public€Trust€PositionÐ W ÐÌßA€Y) °°xdE°ÞgAßÐ ß/ Ð)Ð pÀ Ð)Ð \¬ Ð)Ð H˜ Ð)Ð 4„ Ð)Ð  p Ð)Ð  \ Ð)Ð øH Ð)Ð ä4  ÐÐ Ð ! ÐÓp°œXÓÌÌÌà p àADP€Case€No.€15„03786Ð 4„$ ÐÐ  p% ÐÒ.؉ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓÐ ¨ø% Ðò òÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ ”ä& ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ X ¨) Ðó óÌÔ‡&è£%XXÔò òFOR€GOVERNMENTó óÐ 0"€+ ÐJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselÐ #X, ÐÌò òFOR€APPLICANTó óÐ ¸$ . Ðòòò òPro€seó óóóÔ#†Xè€X%&è£B#ÔÐ %à / ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€trustworthiness€designation.€Ð >(Ž#2 ÐOn€December€9,€2015,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€forÐ *)z$3 Ðthat€decisionð!ðtrustworthiness€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€B€(Foreign€Influence),€Guideline€CÐ *f%4 Ð(Foreign€Preference),€and€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€of€Department€of€DefenseÐ +R&5 ÐDirective€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€€On€JanuaryÐ î+>'6 Ð30,€2017,€after€the€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)€Administrative€JudgeÐ Ú,*(7 ÐMark€Harvey€denied€Applicantððs€request€for€a€trustworthiness€designation.€€Applicant€appealedÐ Æ-)8 Ðpursuant€to€Directive€ðððð€€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.Ð ° ÐÌà  àApplicant€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€whether€the€Judge€denied€him€due€processÐ ˆØ Ðand€whether€the€Judgeððs€adverse€decision€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€The€JudgeððsÐ tÄ ÐÔ_Ôfavorable€findings€under€Guidelines€B€and€C€are€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal.€€Consistent€with€theÐ `° Ðfollowing,€we€affirm.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Findings€of€Factó óÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€made€the€following€findings€pertinent€to€the€issues€raised€on€appeal:€ApplicantÐ ü L  Ðpurchased€rental€property€in€2007,€with€a€view€of€reselling€it€at€a€profit.€€However,€he€experiencedÐ è 8  Ða€negative€cash€flow€from€his€agreement€with€the€renter.€€He€attempted€to€short€sell€the€property,€butÐ Ô$  Ðit€went€into€foreclosure.€€The€sale€resulted€in€a€deficiency,€which€Applicant€estimated€at€about€Ð À  Ð$144,000.€€He€stated€that€an€attorney€told€him€to€ignore€this€debt€because€eventually€the€lender€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðwrite€it€off.€€The€SOR€alleges€two€debtsð!ð$41,000€and€$147,000ð!ðowed€to€the€same€mortgageÐ ˜è  Ðcompany.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àApplicant€received€financial€counseling€and€consulted€with€a€bankruptcy€attorney.€€He€hasÐ \¬ Ðreduced€a€$44,000€credit€card€debt€to€zero€and€is€current€on€all€his€bills.€€His€credit€score€is€743,Ð H˜ Ðwhich€is€considered€excellent.€€Applicant€has€about€$120,000€in€a€401(k)€account.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àApplicant€requested€additional€time€to€ascertain€the€status€of€his€debt.€€The€Judge€gave€himÐ  \ Ð60€days€to€contact€the€creditor€and€determine€the€status€of€the€debts€alleged€in€the€SOR.€€FollowingÐ øH Ðthe€hearing,€Applicant€stated€that€the€statute€of€limitations€for€deficiency€judgments€had€run.€€HeÐ ä4 Ðcited€to€a€law€that€established€three€years€as€the€limitations€period€for€suits€to€enforce€deficiencyÐ Ð  Ðjudgments.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€found€that€Applicant€did€not€explain€how€he€knew€that€the€creditor€had€not€soughtÐ ”ä Ðor€obtained€a€deficiency€judgment,€nor€did€he€aver€that€he€had€even€contacted€the€creditor.€€HeÐ €Ð Ðprovided€no€copies€of€correspondence€with€the€creditor€or€documentary€evidence€to€show€that€a€debtÐ l¼ Ðhad€been€forgiven.€€Applicant€did€not€disclose€whether€he€had€searched€property€records€for€evidenceÐ X ¨ Ðof€a€deficiency€judgment.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àApplicant€enjoys€a€good€reputation€for€his€ethical€standards€as€well€as€his€reliability€andÐ #l! Ðtrustworthiness.€€A€colleague€recommends€that€he€receive€a€trustworthiness€designation.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Analysisó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€cleared€Applicant€of€all€but€the€Guideline€F€allegations,€for€which€he€concludedÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€none€of€the€mitigating€conditions€fully€applied.€€The€Judge€noted€that€Applicantððs€property€wentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinto€foreclosure€in€2010€and€that€since€then€Applicant€had€increased€the€value€of€his€401(k)€plan€byÐ )à$( Ð$100,000.€€The€Judge€noted€that€the€creditor€may€well€not€have€sought€enforcement€of€the€deficiencyÐ |*Ì%) Ðduring€the€limitations€period.€€The€Judge€noted€evidence€of€Applicantððs€excellent€credit€rating.€Ð h+¸&* ÐHowever,€he€cited€to€Appeal€Board€precedent€to€the€effect€that€reliance€on€the€non„collectibility€ofÐ T,¤'+ Ða€debt€does€not€constitute€a€good„faith€effort€to€resolve€that€debt€within€the€meaning€of€the€Directive.€Ð @-(, ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€10„03656€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Jan.€19,€2011).€€He€also€cited€to€cases€holding€thatÐ ° Ða€debtððs€having€dropped€off€a€credit€report€in€and€of€itself€provides€no€meaningful€evidence€of€debtÐ œì Ðresolution€or€of€financial€rehabilitation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€15„02957€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Feb.€17,Ð ˆØ Ð2017).€€Having€so€noted,€the€Judge€went€on€to€state€that€Applicant€had€provided€insufficient€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðabout€his€financial€delinquencies€to€establish€mitigation.€€He€concluded€that€there€is€not€enoughÐ `° Ðevidence€in€the€record€to€support€a€conclusion€that€Applicantððs€problems€are€truly€behind€him€andÐ L œ Ðwill€not€recur.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€the€whole„person€analysis,€the€Judge€cited€to€evidence€that€Applicant€had€not€contactedÐ  ` Ðthe€mortgage€lender€for€several€years€and,€although€given€two€months€in€which€to€present€evidenceÐ ü L  Ðof€the€status€of€the€SOR€debts,€did€not€even€get€in€touch€with€the€creditor.€€Applicant€did€not€provideÐ è 8  Ðsufficient€evidence€to€clarify€the€status€of€the€debts€or€to€show€that€they€were€resolved.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àò òDiscussionó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àApplicant€contends€that€the€Judge€treated€him€unfairly.€Although€not€persuasive,€ApplicantððsÐ „Ô  Ðcontention€merits€discussion.€€He€notes€that€the€Judge€gave€him€extra€time€in€which€to€presentÐ pÀ Ðevidence€about€the€status€of€his€debts,€but€that€the€Judge€concluded€that€the€evidence€he€submittedÐ \¬ Ðwas€of€insufficient€mitigating€value.€€Applicant€states€that€the€debts€in€question€do€not€appear€on€hisÐ H˜ Ðmost€recent€credit€report,€which€he€argues€is€proof€that€the€creditor€did€not€pursue€the€deficiencyÐ 4„ Ðwithin€the€limitations€period€and€that€it€is€no€longer€collectable.€€He€contends€that€the€JudgeððsÐ  p Ðrecommendation€to€contact€his€creditor€constituted€pressure€to€reopen€a€debt€barred€by€the€statuteÐ  \ Ðof€limitations,€which€he€analogized€to€entrapment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð øH ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€the€Judge€provided€guidance€to€Applicant€as€to€what€kind€of€evidence€mightÐ Ð  Ðbe€helpful.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  à[L]etððs€say€you€call€them€up€and€they€say€itððs€beyond€the€statute€of€limitations,€itððsÐ ”ä Ðnot€a€collectable€debt,€weððre€not€interested€in€being€paid.€€If€you€can€get€a€letter€fromÐ €Ð Ðthem€or€some€documentation€to€confirm€that,€then€the€debt€is€resolved.€€Tr.€at€41.€€€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€the€Judge€found,€Applicant€provided€no€reason€to€believe€that€he€had€contacted€theÐ D!” Ðcreditor€at€all.€€Rather,€he€merely€cited€to€state€law€concerning€the€statute€of€limitations€along€withÐ 0"€  Ðan€uncorroborated€assertion€that€the€creditor€had€not€sought€enforcement€within€the€time€providedÐ #l! Ðby€law.€€Applicantððs€argument€that€by€communicating€with€his€creditor€as€the€Judge€envisioned€heÐ $X" Ðcould€have€reaffirmed€his€debts€is€moot,€in€that€he€never€did€undertook€that€course€of€action.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AnyÐ ô$D # Ðerror€by€the€Judge€was€harmless€in€that€it€did€not€affect€the€outcome.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€15„Ð ° Ð00535€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Mar.€13,€2017).€€Applicant€was€not€denied€the€due€process€afforded€by€theÐ œì ÐDirective.€€Otherwise,€Applicantððs€argument€is€a€disagreement€with€the€Judgeððs€weighing€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€in€particular€the€credit€report,€which€is€not€enough€to€show€that€the€Judge€weighed€theÐ tÄ Ðevidence€in€a€manner€that€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ADP€Case€No.€12„Ð `° Ð09387€at€2€(App.€Bd.€Apr.€26,€2016).€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWe€have€considered€Applicantððs€challenge€to€the€Judgeððs€application€of€the€mitigatingÐ $ t Ðconditions€and€the€whole„person€factors.€€We€note€his€reliance€upon€his€credit€score,€which€the€JudgeÐ  ` Ðexplicitly€addressed€in€his€Decision.€€He€also€reiterates€his€contention€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ ü L  Ðapplied€to€his€debts.€€As€stated€above,€we€find€no€error€in€the€Judgeððs€analysis€on€this€matter.€Ð è 8  ÐMoreover,€even€if€enforcement€of€these€debts€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€the€JudgeÐ Ô$  Ðcould€still€consider€the€circumstances€underlying€them,€or€a€paucity€of€evidence€explaining€whatÐ À  ÐApplicant€may€have€done€to€resolve€them.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€09„08550€at€4€(App.€Bd.€Feb.Ð ¬ü  Ð25,€2011).€€€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€data€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theÐ pÀ Ðdecision.€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€The€standard€applicable€to€trustworthinessÐ \¬ Ðcases€is€that€set€forth€in€òòDepartment€of€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988)€regardingÐ H˜ Ðsecurity€clearances:€€such€a€determination€ð ðmay€be€granted€only€when€ððclearly€consistent€with€theÐ 4„ Ðinterests€of€the€national€security.ðððð€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ADP€Case€No.€12„04343€at€3€(App.€Bd.€May€21,€2013).òò€Ð  p ÐSee€also€Kaplan€v.€Conyersóó,€733€F.3d€1148€(Fed.€Cir.€2013),€òòcert.€deniedóó.Ð  \ ÐÌà@ââ(ìàò òOrderó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Decision€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€Michael€Y.€Raððanan€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMichael€Y.€RaððananÐ \ ¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ H!˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ 4"„  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ä%4!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€F.€DuffyÐ Ð& "% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ ¼' #& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ ¨(ø#' ÐÌà@ ìàò òConcurring€Opinion€of€Administrative€Judge€James€E.€Moodyó óˆÐ €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àI€agree€with€my€colleagues€in€their€resolution€of€this€case.€€The€Judgeððs€advice€thatÐ ° ÐApplicantððs€security€concerns€would€be€mitigated€by€evidence€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€runÐ œì Ðwas€ill„considered,€as€noted€in€footnote€2.€€However,€given€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€error€isÐ ˆØ Ðharmless.€€In€addition,€neither€the€record€nor€Applicantððs€brief€provide€information€about€what€sortÐ tÄ Ðof€communications€with€creditors€might€revive€time„barred€debts,€although,€as€the€Appeal€DecisionÐ `° Ðnotes,€the€issue€is€moot.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€E.€MoodyÐ è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ À  ÐÌÌ