KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant incurred approximately $9,182.00 delinquent debt, for which she has no
payment plan in place. She has failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised under financial
considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for a trustworthiness position is denied.
CASENO: 06-19388.h1
DATE: 03/28/2007
DATE:  March 28, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-19388
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr. Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant incurred approximately $9,182.00 delinquent debt, for which she has no payment
plan in place. She has failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised under financial
considerations. Applicant's eligibility for a trustworthiness position is denied.
This action is taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended.1
The government submitted eight items in support of its contentions.2
Item 2 (Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated October 21 2006) at 1-4.3
Item 4 (Application for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P), dated August 19, 2004) at 1-10.4
Item 2, supra note 3, at 1-4.5
Id.6
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 19, 2004, 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 September 28, 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 of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005,
and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines
were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On October 21, 2006, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR, and elected to
have her case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
government’s written case on January 31, 2007. Applicant received a complete file of relevant
material (FORM) on February 7, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and
submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case.  Applicant submitted2
additional information on February 25, 2007. The case was assigned to me on March 13, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all allegations in her SOR response under Guideline F.  The admissions3
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:
Applicant is a 33-year-old woman employed as an office claims associate in a position of
public trust for a defense contractor. After graduating from college in 1992, she worked in the
medical insurance claims field. She has worked for her current employer since 1998. She is a single
parent with one child.  4
Applicant’s nine debts in the SOR total approximately $9,182. The debts in the SOR are not
in dispute.  She admitted that they were delinquent debts, but were acquired during the time she was5
a single parent. She acknowledged that many of her financial decisions were impulsive, and that her
credit has always been “questionable.”  One of the debts was a voluntary car repossession. Applicant6
Item 5 (Credit Bureau Report, dated October 12, 2004) at 1-4.7
Applicant’s Letter, dated February 25, 2007, at 1-2.8
Id.9
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  10
4
offered no explanation for the other debts. Multiple accounts were charged off or placed for
collection between 2001 and 2005, including credit card debt and cable. Several of the debts have
been in collection since 2001.  7
Applicant insists her job and her personal life are separate. She does not understand why this
financial concern has arisen at the current time. She stated that her employer knew of her bad credit
and hired her. She has been in the current position for nine years, and feels she should not be
questioned about her loyalty, trustworthiness, or any “espionage” at this point in her career.
However, she does not feel she should discuss her financial issues with anyone who does not know
her or who can help resolve the issue. At the same time, Applicant wondered why her employer
never counseled her about her credit issues.8
Applicant has not made any payments on the delinquent accounts. She acknowledged that
she is unable to pay her debts because the monthly debt and expenses exceed her monthly income
by $332. In her February 25, 2007 letter, Applicant proclaimed she is currently enrolled in a church
financial planning program (eight weeks in length). She admitted she does not have a budget in place
yet, but is now addressing her debts and how to develop a plan to pay off the majority of the debt.
Applicant provided no evidence of any mitigating conditions involving medical problems or other
extenuating circumstances.  9
Applicant provided no information concerning her work record. She loves her job and
believes she should be allowed to retain her position. She expects to start part time employment in
April 2007 to help pay some of the debt. 
.
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, Safeguarding10
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.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the adjudicative
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.11
 Id.12
 Id.13
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.14
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.15
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).16
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.17
5
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a). The adjudicative guideline at issue in
this case is: 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations - Failure or inability to live within
one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor
self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and
regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. An
individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds.
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as
those which could mitigate concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below.
“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 administrative11
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)12
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.   13
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.14
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 clearly consistent15
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether16
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 access to17
sensitive positions.
AG ¶ 18.18
6
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 of the revised Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG) most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case.
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Concern: Failure or inability to live within one’s
means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment,
or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. An individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.18
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant accrued nine
delinquent debts with an approximate total balance of $9,182. She admits they are still outstanding
debts. She admits her financial situation is strained. Her 2004-2007 credit reports confirm the debt.
Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶19(a), (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC ¶19 (c), (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. 
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against her. I considered the Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶20 (a), (the behavior happened so long ago, was
so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). It does not apply because
she still carries a significant amount of delinquent debt. One collection account is from 2001. Despite
steady employment, she has not made any payments on her debts. Moreover, she does not believe the
government should involve itself in her financial matters.
Applicant mentioned her single parenthood, but provides no evidence or explanation
concerning its effect on her credit card use. In fact, to the contrary, she asserts that her financial affairs
should not be discussed with anyone . Applicant provided no evidence to support the FC MC AG ¶20
(b), (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) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstance).
FC MC AG ¶20 (c) (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/
or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control) only partially
applies. Applicant indicates that she is currently enrolling in a church financial planning workshop,
and will develop a budget. This recent endeavor does not mitigate her years of ignoring the debt. Also,
she indicated she will begin part time employment in April 2007. A promise to take action in the future
is not sufficient to mitigate the financial considerations concern. All of the debts remain outstanding.
She has not taken steps to resolve these debts. Applicant's financial problems remain.  It is unlikely
they will be resolved in the near future.
7
FC MC ¶20(d) (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) is not applicable. Applicant has not shown that she established a record of
steady payments or financial stability. She made no attempts to resolve the majority of the delinquent
accounts. She admitted that her net remainder of negative $332 after paying monthly expenses
prohibits payments on her delinquent debts. I cannot conclude that she made a good-faith effort to
resolve her debts despite her intentions to do so in the future. 
The issue before me is not whether Applicant is still legally liable for any or all of her
outstanding debts, but whether she has presented sufficient evidence of extenuation, mitigating or
changed circumstances to warrant a favorable trustworthiness determination. Her remaining unpaid
debt constitutes a trustworthiness concern. In the last few years, she has not made a concentrated effort
to repay this debt. She has been employed with her current employer since 1998. Her decision to
question the government’s interest in her financial affairs presents a doubt about her willingness to
accept responsibility for her conduct and her trustworthiness to hold a position. I find that Applicant’s
unwillingness to take responsibility and resolve her outstanding debt outweighs any positive factors
in this case. She has not mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline F.
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. Even an applicant with a good or even exemplary work history may engage in conduct
that has negative trustworthiness implications. It is premature to grant Applicant a trustworthiness
position based on her lack of action toward resolving her delinquent accounts. Applicant’s actions to
ignore her creditors, with only a recent attempt to start a financial planning workshop present doubt
about her judgment. Despite her steady employment since graduating from college in 1992, Applicant
has accrued multiple delinquent accounts. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is denied.
.
FORMAL FINDINGS
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a determination of trustworthiness and
eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is denied.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge