KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: The Applicant’s past due debts are directly or indirectly attributed to an “unexpected
medical emergency,” a heart attack and a subsequent stroke.  However, she has offered little to show
she has addressed any of her admitted past due debts.  The Applicant’s excessive indebtedness has
not been mitigated.  A determination of trustworthiness and access to personal sensitive information
is denied.
CASENO: 06-15492.h1
DATE: 03/15/2007
DATE: March 15, 2007
In Re:
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-15492
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant’s past due debts are directly or indirectly attributed to an “unexpected medical
2
emergency,” a heart attack and a subsequent stroke.  However, she has offered little to show she has
addressed any of her admitted past due debts.  The Applicant’s excessive indebtedness has not been
mitigated.  A determination of trustworthiness and access to personal sensitive information is denied.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Systems Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASD C3I) entered into a memorandum of
agreement for DOHA to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed
in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2R, Personnel Security
Program (Regulation), dated January of 1987.
On August 7, 2006, DOHA, pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the
Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding
under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
determination of trustworthiness, suitability, and eligibility for the Applicant to hold a sensitive
Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III).
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on September 7, 2006, in which she elected to have
this case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the
Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 29, 2007.  Applicant was instructed to
submit objections or information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of
the FORM.  Applicant received her copy on February 9, 2007, and Applicant's Reply was received
on February 15, 2007.
The case was received by the undersigned for resolution on March 8, 2007.  The Applicant
admits the underlying factual basis of the allegations, except for the debts noted in subparagraphs
1.g., 1.j., 1.o. and 1.p.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the File of
Relevant Material and Applicant's Response.  The Applicant is 53 years of age, and is employed by
a defense contractor who seeks an ADP-I/II/III position on behalf of the Applicant.  After a complete
and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make
the following additional Findings of Fact.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant, a single mother with two children, suffered a heart attack and a subsequent
stroke in the 2002~2003 time frame; and as a result, incurred considerable financial difficulties
(Reply).
1.a.~1.f., 1.h., 1.i., and 1.k.~1.n.  The Applicant admits, as is corroborated by January 2007
credit report (CR) (Item 7), more than $22,000 in past due debts.  She further avers “I have begun
paying on some of my bills,” but has offered little to support this averment (Reply).
4
1.j. 1.o., and 1.p.  According to the most recent CR, the Applicant is indebted to three
additional creditors in the amount of about $30,000 (Item 7 at pages 2 and 3).  Although she denies
these allegations, she has offered little in support of her contention; and as such, I find these
subparagraphs against the Applicant.
1.g.  The Applicant denies a $3,693 past due debt to “Pinnacle,” an account placed in
collection by “Wachovia.”  As this alleged debt does not appear on the most recent CR, I find this
subparagraph for the Applicant.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
 c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.”
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), which
establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational
connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and her ability to
effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational
connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
5
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant is presently qualifies for access to classified information.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant’s has a plethora of past due debts.  Under Financial Considerations, the first
and the third disqualifying conditions are applicable as the Applicant had a “history of not meeting
[her] financial obligations,” and there was an “[i]nability or unwillingness to satisfy [her] debts.”
However, the Applicant’s financial difficulties can be attributed to circumstances “largely beyond
. . . [her] control (e.g., . . . unexpected medical emergency . . . ).”  The third mitigating condition is
therefore applicable.  However, the Applicant has done little, other than her representations in her
Reply, to address what are, for the most part, admitted past due debts.  Mitigation is not shown.
Guideline F is found against the Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has not rebutted the Government's case regarding
her Financial Considerations.  The Applicant has thus not met the mitigating conditions of Guideline
F, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, she has not met her ultimate burden of
persuasion under Guideline F.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
a.   Against the Applicant.
b.   Against the Applicant.
c.   Against the Applicant.
d.   Against the Applicant.
e.   Against the Applicant.
f.   Against the Applicant.
g.   For the Applicant.
h.   Against the Applicant.
i.   Against the Applicant.
j.   Against the Applicant.
k.   Against the Applicant.
l.   Against the Applicant.
m.  Against the Applicant.
n.   Against the Applicant.
o.   Against the Applicant.
p.  Against the Applicant.
6
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability and
eligibility for the Applicant to hold an ADP-I/II/III.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge