KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has incurred significant
debt as a result of ill health, unemployment, divorce, and two separate legal custody issues. He filed
for bankruptcy in 2002 and the bankruptcy court discharged the indebtedness in November 2002. He
incurred debt after the bankruptcy. More recently his salary and available income have improved.
He has always paid his rent and is current on his bills. He has made good faith efforts to resolve the
debt. His continuing efforts to resolve his past financial obligations have sufficiently mitigated the
trustworthiness concerns raised under financial considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for a
trustworthiness position is granted.
CASENO: 06-16417.h1
DATE: 02/28/2007
DATE: February 28, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-16417
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nicole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has incurred significant debt
as a result of ill health, unemployment, divorce, and two separate legal custody issues. He filed for
This action is taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; and Memorandum1
from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Counterintelligence and Security, titled “Adjudication of Trustworthiness
Cases,” dated November 19, 2004.
The case was originally assigned to another administrative judge in October 2006. Applicant’s November2
hearing was cancelled due to his illness at that time. The case was assigned to me because of caseload considerations.
Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated September 25, 2006) at 1-2.3
2
bankruptcy in 2002 and the bankruptcy court discharged the indebtedness in November 2002. He
incurred debt after the bankruptcy. More recently his salary and available income have improved.
He has always paid his rent and is current on his bills. He has made good faith efforts to resolve the
debt. His continuing efforts to resolve his past financial obligations have sufficiently mitigated the
trustworthiness concerns raised under financial considerations. Applicant's eligibility for a
trustworthiness position is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 18, 2005, Applicant submitted an application for a position of public trust, an
ADP I/II/III position. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant the
application under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (the “Directive”).  On August 24, 2006,1
DOHA issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR,
which is in essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F,
Financial Considerations. On October 6, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
requested a hearing. 
The case was assigned to me on January 3, 2007.  A notice of hearing was issued on January2
11, 2007, scheduling the hearing for January 30, 2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. The
government submitted four exhibits that were marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-5. The
exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. Applicant submitted five exhibits which
were marked and admitted into evidence as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-E. The exhibits were
admitted without objection. Applicant testified in his own behalf. At Applicant’s request, I left the
record open for additional submissions. Applicant timely filed three documents for post hearing
submission. The documents are marked AE F, G, and H. Department Counsel had no objection to
the admission of the documents. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 7, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted, with explanation, allegations, 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.g, 1.i, in his SOR
response under Guideline F.  He denied the other allegations, because he has paid some of them and3
had no knowledge of  “unknown medical provider accounts” listed in the SOR. The admissions are
incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due
consideration, I make the following additional findings of fact:
GE 1 (Public Trust Application), dated December 18, 2005 at 1-5.4
Tr. 265
Tr. 36.6
AE D (Annual Performance Evaluations), dated 2000 to 2007 at 1-5.7
Id.8
Tr. 26.9
GE 2 (Affidavit and Personal Financial Statement), dated October 2, 2004 at 1-9.10
AE E (Pay record), dated 2001-2007.11
Tr. 29.12
AE F (Letter from physician, dated February 15, 2007); Tr. 58.13
3
Applicant is a married, 53-year-old team specialist of a defense contractor, seeking a position
of public trust.  After graduating from high school in 1971, he attended a community college,4
receiving an Associate of Arts degree in 1973. Due to his poor health, he was not eligible to enlist
in the military.  In 1976, Applicant married. However, in 1983, he divorced. His second marriage5
lasted from 1985 until 1996. In 1985, Applicant engaged in a lengthy custody battle for his daughter.
This created approximately $100,000 in legal expenses for Applicant. He managed to support his
family during this time. Applicant married for the third time in1998. He has 13 children, with two
dependent children at home.  He has been with his current employer for almost seven years,6
receiving various promotions.  His performance evaluation rated him as “exceeding expectations.”7 8
Applicant had no financial difficulties prior to 1998. He was current on his bills. However,
in September 1998, he was in an automobile accident. He damaged his back and has permanent
arthritis spurs. He has medication for the pain.  This resulted in unemployment for about three9
months. He started to fall behind in his accounts. He attempted to make minimum monthly payments
but was living paycheck to paycheck. At the same time his wife lost her job. He accrued more debt
and lost potential income. Shortly after returning to, work Applicant was again unemployed. He
worked at low paying jobs and part time work to support his family. The financial delinquencies
continued.10
In 1999, Applicant started working for his current employer. He receives an hourly wage.11
He and his wife, at that time, however, took custody of his wife’s grandchild. The child’s father was
in jail and the mother was selling drugs, could not provide for the baby. Applicant and his wife spent
two years in legal proceedings to become the legal guardians. This cost them approximately $5,000
in legal fees.  As well as loss of pay due to absence from work for many court proceedings but they
felt they had no choice.  Applicant’s health also continued to decline. He suffers from a low immune12
system which subjects him to illness.
Applicant contracted meningitis in late 1999. He has suffered from pneumonia and has severe
allergies. His treating physician confirms his multiple respiratory infections and severe irritable
bowel syndrome, which has caused prolonged absence from work, and some loss of pay.13
GE 5 (Bankruptcy Petition and Discharge ), dated November 2002 at 1-57.14
GE  supra note 6, at 1-5.15
AE E supra note 11.16
Tr. 23, 24.17
AE B (Ledger card for collection company), dated November 21, 2006.18
AE A (Journal voucher for a federal credit union), dated October 13, 2006.19
AE C (Account summary), dated December 2006.20
Tr. 69.21
Tr. 68.22
Id.23
4
In 2002, Applicant filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court discharged the
indebtedness in November 2002.  He will not consider another bankruptcy proceeding.14
On December 18, 2005, Applicant completed a Public Trust Position Application SF 85-P.15
Applicant’s work history prior to his current employment was, as noted above, uneven. He produced
evidence at the hearing confirming that his income with his current employer has varied widely over
the past years due to illness.  His recent illness has caused further delay in paying on his delinquent16
accounts.  Applicant was on temporary disability last year, at the recommendation of his doctor. At17
one point his doctor suggested permanent disability, but Applicant asked for modifications and
restrictions at work instead.
Applicant’s debts in SOR include two judgments which have been satisfied.  A judgment18
for one property management company was listed three times. Applicant’s testimony was credible
concerning the property management judgment. The owner of the property released him from the
unpaid rent and security deposit. The owner expressly told Applicant that the property management
company did not have the owner’s consent to file the judgment. A collection account in the amount
of $8,773 has a zero balance.  A charged off account in the amount of $178 is paid in full. Applicant19
is paying another debt of $1,209 on a regular basis.  20
 Applicant provided information about the origin of the debts. He lived frugally and none of
the debts were due to excessive spending. Several unpaid accounts, totaling less than $400 are to
medical institutions.   He acknowledges that the lengthy custody battles put his debts, other than21
living expenses on the back burner. He has selected the most important debts and made an effort to
resolve them. The one large debt remaining is due to the voluntary repossession of a used automobile
in 2004.  He had been making payments on the vehicle, but the vehicle was constantly breaking22
down. It was under a warranty, but the dealer did not honor the warranty. Applicant told them to
come and pick up the car.23
. 
Tr. 101, 102.24
Tr. 103.25
Tr. 76.26
Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated October 2006.27
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  28
5
Applicant’s remaining debts are as follows: $6,495 balance on an auto loan (voluntary
repossession) in 2004; $50 medical account in 2003; $200 medical account in collection in 2003;
$75 medical account in collection in 2003; $50 medical account in collection in 2004; and $1,014
delinquent account in 2004.  His total debt is approximately $16,000.24 25
Applicant has a net monthly income of $1,800. His wife earns approximately $1,500 a month.
After reported expenses, he has a small net remainder.  He has retirement savings. His wife budgets26
and manages the bills. They are current on their rent and car note. Applicant’s alleged debt in the
SOR was $32,000. He has established with sufficient documentation that today the total debt has
been significantly reduced.27
POLICIES
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national
security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position … that
will give that person access to such information.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding28
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth
personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.  The adjudicative guideline at issue in this case is: 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations - An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to
generate funds to meet financial obligations.
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as
those which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth
and discussed in the conclusions below.
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.29
 Id.30
 Id.31
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.32
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.33
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).34
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.35
6
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”    An administrative29
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)30
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 voluntariness of participation; (6) the
presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent 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.   31
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.32
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly33
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to34
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations for access35
to sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline F - Financial Considerations.
Financial Considerations
Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC)
E2.A6.1.2.1 (A history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3 (Inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply to Applicant's case.  Applicant has experienced difficulty meeting
his financial obligations since 1999. He filed for bankruptcy in 2002, and his indebtedness was
discharged by the bankruptcy court. This is a legally permissible mean of dealing with delinquent debt.
Currently, he has delinquent debts with an approximate total balance of $16,000. 
7
I considered the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC). Applicant's
numerous delinquent debts remain outstanding. Therefore, I cannot apply FC MC E2.A6.1.3.1 (The
behavior was not recent), nor FC MC E2.A6.1.3.2 (The behavior was isolated) because he still carries
a significant amount of delinquent debt. 
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.3 (The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the
person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or
a death, divorce, or separation)) applies. Applicant had periods of illness and temporary disability,
and provided  evidence as to the effect on his finances. Moreover, his divorce and subsequent lengthy
custody proceedings created a significant amount of debt. Applicant provided  evidence to support this
mitigating condition. Applicant’s uneven pay history, ill health, divorce and custody issues are
sufficient for mitigation in this case.
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4 (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control) partially applies.
Applicant has satisfied several judgments and paid some accounts.  He has  taken steps to resolve these
debts. The record is devoid of any information concerning financial counseling.
FC MC E2.1.3.6 (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) is applicable. Applicant has shown that he established a record of steady
payments or financial stability when he was working. He made attempts to resolve the delinquent
accounts, and continues to do so. He and his wife are both employed. I  conclude that he made a good-
faith effort to resolve his debts.
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s
trustworthiness. Applicant is a married man with children and dependents at the current time. His debt
resulted from unemployment and illness. He has a good work history. In this case, Applicant presented
sufficient evidence of extenuation and mitigation to warrant a favorable decision. He has
acknowledged a willingness to accept responsibility for his overdue accounts and has reduced his
delinquent debt. Applicant has met his burden. Based on the evidence in the record, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties.
Eligibility is granted.
FORMAL FINDINGS
8
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a determination of trustworthiness and eligibility
for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is granted.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge