KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant’s financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for an
information systems position. Trustworthiness determination denied.
CASENO: 06-11767.h1
DATE: 03/30/2007
DATE: March 30, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-11767
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for an information
systems position. Trustworthiness determination denied.
Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive).1
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 9 April 1993, the Composite Health Care System Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD C I) entered into a memorandum of3
agreement for DOHA to conduct trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed
in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security
Program (Regulation), dated January 1987.
Applicant appeals the 31 August 2006 DOHA Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending
denial of her trustworthiness determination because of financial considerations.  Applicant answered1
the SOR 13 October 2006, and requested a decision on the record. On 8 February 2007, she
responded to DOHA’s 25 January 2007 File of Relevant Material (FORM). The record closed on 12
February 2007, when Department Counsel indicated no objection to the response. DOHA assigned
the case to me 22 March 2007.
         FINDINGS OF FACT
 
Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR. Accordingly, I incorporate those admissions
as findings of fact. She is a 38-year-old senior field representative for a medical contractor, and seeks
access to sensitive patient information. She has not previously had a trustworthiness determination.
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to September 1996, when she
bounced a check that remains unpaid. The SOR alleges 23 debts, totaling over $40,000, falling past
due between September 1996 and January 2006. Except for a city utility account that fell past due
in January 2006, all her past due accounts fell delinquent before May 2004. Of the 23 past due
accounts alleged in the SOR, 18 are for less than $450, 12 of those are for less than $200, and three
of those are for less than $100. Yet, none have been paid.
Applicant’s delinquent accounts are varied, and include a delinquent automobile loan, five
medical accounts, four local-government-run utility accounts, and six bounced checks. The bounced
checks include checks for  necessities (groceries) and checks for luxuries (pizza [twice], and having
her nails done).
Applicant reported financial difficulties on her November 2003 application for public trust
position (Item 5), which she later updated in October and December 2004, but provided few specifics
because she had not seen a copy of her credit report. In her June 2005 sworn statement (Item 7),
Applicant acknowledged six debts totaling nearly $11,000 that she intended to pay or reach
repayment schedules for. She listed 10 debts that she disputed. She attributed the delinquent accounts
to lowered income as a result of injuries to her husband on an unspecified date. However, a personal
financial statement (PFS) completed at the same time as her statement showed positive cash flow
of over $2,400 per month—including net income from her husband of $2,100 per month. The PFS
included no payments on her outstanding debts. Further, notwithstanding the positive cash flow, her
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
3
answers to DOHA interrogatories (Item 6) in January 2006, showed no payments on any of the
accounts.
Applicant’s response to the FORM stated that she and her husband filed a Chapter 13 Wage
Earner Petition in December 2006 (confirmed by Item 9), and had made their first payment.
However, she provided no documentation of the claimed payment, of which debts were to be paid,
or which were to be discharged without payment. For the first time she claimed that her finances
were adversely affected by a two-year period of unemployment between March 1998 and March
2000, when she stayed home after the birth of her second child.
There is no evidence that Applicant is receiving credit counseling or other training to help
her avoid financial problems in the future. There is no character evidence in the record.
 POLICIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The Directive, Enclosure 2 lists adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an
Applicant’s suitability for a trustworthiness determination. Administrative Judges must assess both
disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and
circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific
adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information.
Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative
guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Trustworthiness determinations resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s request for access to sensitive information. The
government must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access to sensitive
information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case. Because no
one has a right to a trustworthiness determination, the Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to sensitive information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the
government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest in
ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those
who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in
favor of the government.2
CONCLUSIONS
E2.A6.1.2.1 A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy3
debts;    
E2.A6.1.3.1 The behavior was not recent;4
E2.A6.1.3.2 It was an isolated incident;5
E2.A6.1.3.3 The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control. . .;6
E2.A6.1.3.4 The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications7
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
E2.A6.1.3.6 The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
4
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F by demonstrating
over 10 years of financial irresponsibility by Applicant. She did not mitigate the trustworthiness
concerns. She admitted over $40,000 of delinquent debt, accumulated between September 1996 and
January 2006.  Many of the debts were so small that it is simply irresponsible for Applicant to have3
not satisfied them before now, regardless of how they came to be delinquent.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her financial
difficulties are both recent  and not isolated;  indeed they appear to be ongoing. Her husband’s health4 5
issues might be considered a circumstance beyond her control,  but not knowing when his injuries6
occurred makes it difficult to give this any significant weight. Further, her financial problems also
include consequences of choices she has made in the past, for example voluntary unemployment for
two years—during which time five accounts alleged in the SOR became delinquent. In addition,
several of the debts are for purchases that were frivolous. Beyond her financial irresponsibility in
accumulating debt, she has been irresponsible in handling her debt after her finances improved. She
had substantial positive monthly cash flow in June 2005, yet satisfied no delinquent accounts. There
is no evidence that she has sought credit counseling or otherwise brought the problem under control.7
While her Chapter 13 Wage Earner Plan filing in December 2006 offers some possibility of financial
improvement, she has provided no information to gauge how extensive that relief might be, to show
she has the means to meet the five years of payments, or to substantiate lifestyle changes that might
demonstrate that she will be able to avoid financial difficulties in the future.  I conclude Guideline8
F against Applicant.
. FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph g: Against Applicant
5
Subparagraph h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph t: Against Applicant
Subparagraph u: Against Applicant
Subparagraph v: Against Applicant
Subparagraph w: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a designation of trustworthiness, suitability, and
eligibility for Applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position. Trustworthiness
determination denied.
 
John G. Metz, Jr.
Administrative Judge