KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant mitigated financial security concerns from debts related to consolidation bank
loans from a former bank employer. Her debts were mitigated by unemployment, under-employment
and hospitalization over an extended period, which was beyond her control. Her financial situation
has improved due to her present full time employment and court ordered child support payments
from her former husband. She is in a position to continue and increase the re-payments to the bank
and there is little likelihood of recurrence of the problem. Her omission of information relating to
delinquent debt on her public trust application was not deliberate with intent to deceive. Clearance
is granted. 
CASENO: 06-16378.h1
DATE: 03/30/2007
DATE: March 30, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-16378
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant mitigated financial security concerns from debts related to consolidation bank
loans from a former bank employer. Her debts were mitigated by unemployment, under-employment
and hospitalization over an extended period, which was beyond her control. Her financial situation
has improved due to her present full time employment and court ordered child support payments
from her former husband. She is in a position to continue and increase the re-payments to the bank
and there is little likelihood of recurrence of the problem. Her omission of information relating to
delinquent debt on her public trust application was not deliberate with intent to deceive. Clearance
is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On August 30, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 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 trustworthiness determination for an ADP clearance for Applicant.
DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether such a
clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.
On September 21, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, and requested a
hearing. The matter was assigned to another judge on October 24, 2006, and assigned to me on
December 15, 2006. A notice of hearing was issued on January 18, 2007, for a hearing on February
6, 2007, and held that day. The government offered three exhibits and Applicant offered eight into
evidence and all were accepted. The record was left open for until March 9, 2007, for submission
by the Applicant of additional material. The transcript was received on February 14, 2007. One
submission consisting of eleven documents was made on March 2, 2007, and admitted in evidence
without objection. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted two of the three allegations relating to delinquent debts with explanatory
information for all. She denied the single allegation relating to falsification of financial information
on her application for a security clearance (SF 86). She appended two documents to her answer.
After a complete review of the record, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 46-year-old customer service representative for a defense contractor health
provider and has held this position since September 2005. She has a responsible position working
with medical information for military personnel and is highly regarded by her employer (Exhs. E,
F, and G). Her work involves  making telephone calls to military personnel and their families
regarding  claims against insurance companies and health service providers. She takes great pride
in her work and especially so since her father served 20 years in the military. She has worked for her
present employer since September, 2005. 
3
Before her present employment she worked for several years as a customer representative and
cashier for several employers. From July 2001 until the end of January 2002 she worked in a bank
where she was employed as a part time bank teller while holding another part time job. During that
period she was offered full time 40 hours a week employment at an hourly rate as a teller filling a
full time position of another employee, who had family medical problems. She quit her other part
time job to work full time at the bank. 
During the period of her bank employment in 2001, Applicant made a consolidation loan
with her employer in the amount of $20,000. This is the principal delinquent debt alleged (SOR 1.b.).
A second easy access loan was taken for $2,000 and subsequently reduced to $1,800 (SOR
1.c.).Payments were to be made to the bank of $294 each month, which was to be disbursed to
creditors (Exh H Post submission). These payments were used on December 10, 2001, to pay the
debt of $816 alleged in SOR 1.a. (Exh. D Post submission). Subsequently, her hours of work were
cut to between seven and eleven per week because of personnel changes. She could not keep up the
payments and was laid off in July 2002 because the bank could not have an employee who was in
default on a loan to them. She was again working with only part time employment. 
The bank filed suit to collect, resulting in a hearing and an agreement in 2002 to pay $100
per month to settle the account. Some payments were made over the next two years and the bank
appears to have been flexible in collecting. She had a serious automobile accident in February 2005
that resulted in surgery in October 2005 shortly after she began her new job. She was unable to work
until January 2006. Although she was paid disability insurance during convalescence, she could not
make the bank payments on a regular basis, and so advised the bank. They agreed to defer payments
until she resumed her work 
The agreement with the bank was re-confirmed on February 26, 2007, (Exh. C Post
submission). She has made payments since the new agreement was reached. Since obtaining her
present full time position her annual salary, after recent promotions, is almost $29,000 (Exh. L Post
submission). She intends to pay more than the required minimum, and her income level indicates
that is now possible.
Applicant has one child, a daughter who is in college. She recently was awarded a judgment
against her former husband for child support arrears in the amount of $19,000 which she can collect.
She is active as a missionary in her church whose bishop vouched for her good character (Exh. J
Supplemental submission). 
Applicant failed to report delinquent debts at Question 20 of her Public Trust Position
Application (SF 85 P) submitted September 21, 2005. This question asked if she was over 180 days
delinquent on any loan or financial obligation. She knew the SOR 1.a. debt had been paid and
believed that her agreement for payments to the bank meant that she was not delinquent on the two
bank loans. 
POLICIES
4
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.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 527 (1988). In Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, § 3.1(b) (August 4,
1995), the President provided that eligibility for access to classified information shall be granted only
to United States citizens “whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to
the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound
judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness
and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified
information.”  
To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in DoD 5200.2-R. “The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to
sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and
trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with
the interests of national security.” DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C6.1.1.1. Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets
forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline. 
“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.”  DoD 5200.2-R,
Appendix 8.  An administrative judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and
carefully weigh the available, reliable information about the person. Id. An administrative judge
should consider the following factors: (1) 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. Id.  
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in DoD Directive
5220.6 before any final unfavorable access determination may be made. DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C8.2.1.
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.
Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive, ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden
of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “Any doubt as to whether access
to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. 
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the
government. The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. The decision to deny an individual
a security clearance is not a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. Exec. Ord. 10865, § 7.
5
It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has
established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s delinquent debts cited in the SOR prompted the allegation of security concern
under Guideline F since an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage
in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence
of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) 
Mitigating Conditions (MC) might include the fact that the conditions that resulted in the
behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (E2.A6.1.3.3.), and the person has initiated a good
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.). There is sufficient
evidence that the debts resulted from conditions beyond her control because of her employment
changes at the bank where she had the loan, compounded last year by her accident and
hospitalization. She now has sufficient income from her salary and child support that she can pay
the loan to the bank and the likelihood of a recurrence of the problem is minimal. While the bank
loan helped her out of the immediate problems she had in 2001, the reduction in employment and
the loss of that job complicated her financial recovery. 
Applicant’s failure to report her financial delinquencies at Questions 20 on her SF 85 P raises
issues under Guideline E that might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information (E2.A5.1.1.). Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant and material facts from a trustworthiness application could raise a security
concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.) Applicant’s explanation of the circumstances of the
loans from the bank and her understanding of the state of her debts in relation to those loans was
credible and thus, I cannot conclude that it was deliberate omission as the guideline requires. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. The
“whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts and
omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant
circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. 
Applicant impressed me at the hearing as a proud person who is hard-working. Her
delinquent debts accumulated largely as a result of checkered history of employment for an
6
extended period resulting in a loss of control of her finances. She took out two bank loans from her
employer in an effort to resolve those issues but then had her employment cut and then terminated
by the lender bank. She is a responsible parent with significant responsibilities, who now has a good
job where she is a valued employee. There is a strong likelihood of success in effective management
of her finances. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the
whole person of Applicant, I conclude in favor of the grant of a security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a trustworthy determination for Applicant. Clearance
is granted. 
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge