KEYWORD: Financial; Drugs; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 29 years old, married but separated, and living with her current unemployed
boyfriend.  She owes 12 delinquent debts totaling about $29,000, used marijuana from 1995 to 2004,
and was discharged from four jobs between 1998 and 2002.  She mitigated the drug involvement,
and personal conduct trustworthiness concerns.  She did not mitigate the financial considerations
trustworthiness concern.  Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
CASENO: 04-12294.h1
DATE: 04/24/2007
DATE:  April 24, 2007
In re:
--------------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 04-12294
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PHILIP S. HOWE
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Anthony C. Delyea, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 29 years old, married but separated, and living with her current unemployed
boyfriend.  She owes 12 delinquent debts totaling about $29,000, used marijuana from 1995 to 2004,
and was discharged from four jobs between 1998 and 2002.  She mitigated the drug involvement,
and personal conduct trustworthiness concerns.  She did not mitigate the financial considerations
trustworthiness concern.  Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
Adjudication of trustworthiness cases for ADP I, II, and III positions are resolved using the provisions of DoD1
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), pursuant to the memorandum from Carol A. Haave, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Counterintelligence and Security to DOHA Director, Adjudication of Trustworthiness Cases (Nov. 19, 2004).
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended2
and modified, and the Directive.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
position of trust for Applicant .  On August 1, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons  (SOR)1 2
detailing the basis for its decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the
Directive.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing, but did not date her Answer.  She elected to have
a hearing before an administrative judge.  The case was assigned to another administrative judge on
October 16, 2006.  That administrative judge set a hearing for November 28, 2006, but granted
Applicant’s request for continuance because of Applicant counsel’s illness.  The case was reassigned
to me on December 6, 2006.  On January 31, 2007, I convened a hearing to consider whether it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a trustworthiness determination for
Applicant.  The Government and the Applicant submitted exhibits that were admitted into evidence.
The Government moved to amend the SOR to delete a reference to paragraph 3-614, DoD
Regulation 5200.2-R in the precatory language of the SOR because it was not applicable to this
proceeding.  The Applicant having no objection, I granted the motion (Tr. 6).  DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 13, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated as findings of fact.  After a
complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and full consideration of that evidence,
I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 29 years old, married but separated from her husband whom she married in
December 1999, and lives with her current boyfriend.  When she married, her husband started
abusing her, and caused a separation between Applicant and her family.  Applicant had several
miscarriages and her husband forced her to have an abortion during her marriage.  Applicant worked
two or three jobs while her husband spent her income and did not work.  Applicant had no debt when
she married.  She finally left him in 2000, and moved to her current city of residence.  She wants a
divorce, but has to save the money to pay for the divorce.  Her current boyfriend does not work due
to foot and anxiety problems, but is seeking employment.  Applicant pays all expenses presently.
Applicant miscarried her latest pregnancy in January 2007, resulting in a hospital stay. (Tr. 15-20,
35, 59-61, 66, 75; Exhibit 1) 
After Applicant  moved to her current location, she had a series of temporary jobs until
obtaining a permanent position in October 2002.  She remained in that job until February 2004, when
she obtained her current position as a customer service representative with the defense contractor.
Her current income from that position is $1,520 monthly. (Tr. 22-26, 49, 57; Exhibit H)
4
Applicant used marijuana from 1995 until late 2003 or early 2004.  She did not use it after
February 2004 when she completed the Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions, the standard form
85P (85P).  She obtained marijuana from friends to relieve the stress of her financial, physical, and
marital problems.  She does not intend to use it again.  She now exercises, reads, bicycles, meditates,
and uses other techniques to relieve her life stresses.  She consulted with a licensed clinical social
worker in June 2005, attempting to resolve her diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed emotional
features. (Tr. 20, 21, 27-30, 32, 62; Exhibit G)
Between December 1998 and March 2002, Applicant lost four jobs because of various
allegations of wrongdoing.  Her toy store employer discharged her in December 1998 based on
allegations of theft.  Next, a drug store employer terminated her on March 2, 1999, for stealing three
customer’s credit card numbers and using them to purchase merchandise for herself.  In a signed
statement to that company’s investigator, Applicant admitted stealing other merchandise from her
employer.  The total value of all items taken illegally by Applicant she estimated at $332.88.  Then,
a leasing company for whom Applicant worked terminated her in December 2000, for using all her
sick time.  Applicant wanted to stop working for that company, and told her supervisor that desire.
The company then terminated her.  Lastly, Applicant lost her job at a mail order company in March
2002 based on harassment allegations.  Applicant claims she was harassed by another employee, but
the employer terminated her, as Applicant understands the reason to be because she harassed the
other employee.  Applicant never received a written termination letter from the employer detailing
the reasons for this job termination. (Tr. 43-47; Exhibits 1, 3-5)
Applicant owes 12 delinquent debts totaling about $29,000.  She paid one delinquent debt
through a garnishment process after the creditor obtained a judgment, paying a total amount of
$857.46 by May 2006 (SOR subparagraph 1.b., $615 to a financial institution).  Applicant does not
have the income to repay the other delinquent debts at the present time because her monthly
expenses total $1,611 and her income is $1,520 monthly.  She has no credit cards, and does not have
cable television service because she cannot afford it.  She attended a financial counseling course in
2002, and is allowed to use the course advisors as needed in the future.  She is working on a budget
for 2007.  She moved from an apartment in mid-2006 where she paid $905 for rent into an apartment
costing $695 monthly.  She does not have a car and takes the bus to work, consuming about an
hour’s travel time each way.  Her boyfriend did not work in 2006 and is looking for a job in 2007,
and until he can contribute to the household income she pays all expenses.  Those expenses included
about $3,000 in medical expenses over what her health insurance paid in 2006. (Tr. 30-40, 57, 65,
67; Exhibits 2, C-F)
The unpaid delinquent debts owed by Applicant are the following debts as listed in the SOR.
Applicant owes $10,574 to a lender subparagraph 1.a.) for the balance due on a used car she
purchased, but which was repossessed in 2001 when she could no longer make payments after she
separated from her husband.  Applicant claims the delinquent debt for $13,782 in a judgment from
2002 (subparagraph 1.c.) is the same debt owed for the car in subparagraph 1.a.  The delinquent debt
for $123 owed to a retailer in subparagraph 1.d. is unpaid.  It occurred because her husband took
money from the checking account without telling Applicant, and she later wrote a check that was
returned for insufficient funds.  The $74 account owed in subparagraph 1.e. is the same situation as
the previous debt to the same retailer.  The $549 debt in subparagraph 1.f. is owed to a “pay day”
loan company.  The $456 debt owed in subparagraph 1.g. is for a telephone bill.  The bank debt for
$675 in subparagraph 1.h. is an overdrawn account resulting from her husband’s withdrawal of funds
5
from the account.  The $1,135 owed to a credit card company in subparagraph 1.i. is for purchases
she made before that card was stolen.  A telephone bill for $1,205 is the debt in subparagraph 1.j.
Applicant does not recognize the $133 debt in subparagraph 1.k..  The $253 debt listed in
subparagraph 1.l is for a cable television bill Applicant incurred and could not pay when she lived
with her husband.  Applicant is not certain of the basis for the $128 debt owed in subparagraph 1.m.
None of these creditors have contacted Applicant, nor has she contacted them about payment
arrangements lately.  She contacted some in 2005 when her boyfriend worked and she had some
money to repay some portion of the debts.  She is currently working with two credit counselors to
attempt to consolidate her debt and establish a monthly repayment schedule.  Applicant also attends
a “get checking” educational program at a local credit union, the completion of which will enable
Applicant to open checking and savings accounts at the credit union. (Tr. 40-42, 49-58, 76-89;
Exhibits 2, D, F)
POLICIES
As Commander in Chief, 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).  The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his
designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that
it is clearly consistent the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information with Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960).  By direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Counterintelligence and Security, adjudications of cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense
Security Service or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for a trustworthiness determination
shall be conducted under the provisions of the Directive.  Eligibility for a position of trust is
predicated upon the applicant meeting the guidelines contained in the Directive and a finding it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so. See Directive ¶ 2.3.  An applicant “has the
ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his trustworthiness determination.” See Directive ¶ E3.1.15
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive
sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) under each guideline that must be carefully considered in making the overall
common sense determination required.  The decision to deny an individual eligibility to occupy a
position of trust is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or.
10865 § 7.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a such a determination.
In evaluating the trustworthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess
the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive.  Those assessments include:  (1) the
nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and
the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (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 (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2).  Because each case
6
presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust
the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case.  Moreover, although
adverse information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable
determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or
recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the
Guidelines.
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible to occupy a position of trust.  The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an
applicant’s trustworthiness suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).
All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for
mishandling classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  ISCR
Case No. 00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001).  Once the Government has
established a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate
burden of demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
trustworthiness determination. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 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
Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative
guidelines most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:
Guideline F: Financial Considerations: The Concern: An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. E2.A6.1.1
Guideline H: Drug Involvement: The Concern. Improper or illegal involvement with drugs,
raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information.
Drug abuse or dependence may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. E2.A8.1.1
Guideline E: Personal Conduct: The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules
and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
E2.A5.1.1
“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.”
(Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1)  Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets forth the adjudicative policy, as well as
the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) associated with each guideline.
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the adjudication procedures contained in the Directive.
(Regulation ¶ C8.2.1)
7
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations  Applicant has 12 delinquent debts listed in the SOR.  Two may
be duplicates of each other, but nonetheless she has significant debts totaling  $19,000 to $29,000
(the lesser amount would be the debt if the duplication is eliminated).  She has made no effort to
repay these debts.  The one listed debt repaid was by garnishment of her wages.  Applicant’s income
is consumed monthly by her expenses.  She supports her unemployed boyfriend, causing her deficit
spending.  Having a roommate who split the rent costs would allow Applicant to apply about $300
monthly to debt reduction.  Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 1 (A history of not meeting financial
obligations E2.A6.1.2.1), and DC 3 (Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts E2.A6.1.2.3) apply.
Applicant’s financial difficulties are caused in part by her marital situation, but she has had
seven years during which she could have addressed her delinquent debts, and has not done anything
to resolve them.  Her unemployed boyfriend is currently a financial drain on her.  Mitigating
Conditions (MC) 3 (the conditions resulting in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s
control, such as loss of employment, unexpected medical emergency, and divorce or separation
E2.A6.1.3.3) does not apply because of the time interval of separation, and the repeated poor
judgment she exercised over the past seven years in not attempting to resolve even her smaller debts.
None of the other MC apply.
Drug Involvement Applicant used marijuana from 1995 at the age of 17 until February 2004
at the age of 26.  She used it to relieve the stress of her life, including the abuse from her husband.
DC 1 (any drug abuse. E2.A8.1.2.1) applies.
The last drug use of Applicant was February 2004.  She expressed an intent not to use it again
in the future, choosing meditation and exercise, among other techniques, to relieve her stresses.  I
conclude she is credible in her explanation of her future plans.  MC 1 (the drug involvement is not
recent. E2.A8.1.3.1) and MC 3 (a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future.
E2.A8.1.3.3) apply.
Personal Conduct  Four employers between 1998 and 2002 terminated Applicant for various
reasons, including two for theft, one for being harassed by another employee or harassing another
employee, and one for excessive use of sick leave.  DC 1 (reliable, unfavorable information provided
by associates, employers, or coworkers. E2.A5.1.2.1), DC 4 (personal conduct that increases an
individual’s vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or duress, such as engaging in activities which,
if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing or render the person
susceptible to blackmail. E2.A5.1.2.4), and DC 5 (a pattern of dishonesty. E2.A5.1.2.5) apply.
Applicant has worked faithfully for two employers for the past five years.  She has no
difficulties in these two jobs, and she has been working for her present employer for three years.  She
has taken positive steps to reduce her vulnerability to duress and coercion.  She has had no further
employment problems since 2002.  MC 5 (the individual has taken positive steps to significantly
reduce or eliminate vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress. E2.A5.1.3.5) applies.  
Whole Person Analysis
8
“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" trustworthiness decision. Directive
E2.2.1.  “Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.” Id
In addition to evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each guideline,
the adjudicative process requires thorough consideration and review of all available, reliable
information about the applicant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced
decision.  The essence of scrutinizing all appropriate variables in a case is known as the “whole
person” analysis. Directive ¶ E2.2.  In evaluating the conduct of the applicant, an administrative
judge should consider: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (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 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.
I considered the totality of the evidence in view of the whole person concept, including
Applicant’s age, her demeanor while testifying and candid discussion about her finances and abusive
marital relationship.  Regarding her financial situation and the delinquent debts, Applicant expressed
a willingness to resolve her financial obligations, but has she has done nothing to resolve her debts.
Nor has she done anything since the SOR was sent to her to resolve even some of the debts to
establish a pattern and commitment to paying her delinquent debts.  She saved no money over seven
years since her separation.  Even during the past five years while holding full-time positions, she
ignored the debts and did not develop a plan to repay them.  She incurred additional financial
burdens by living with an unemployed boyfriend whom she supports.  
Evaluating her marijuana usage I conclude it is not recent and she will not use it again in the
future to escape from her problems and stresses.  Her marijuana use stopped three years ago and she
convincingly stated her commitment not to use it again in the future.  Even time has passed that her
marijuana usage is not recent.  
Considering her employment history, her later two discharges were for interpersonal and
personal reasons, not work performance or misconduct issues.  She has now established a consistent
and apparently untroubled work history for the past five years which mitigates that concern.  She
explained which situations and their context persuasively in contrast to her present employment and
interpersonal relationships to show that type of conduct will not recur in the future.  Hence, all
allegations under Paragraph 1 of the SOR are concluded against her.  The allegations under
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of SOR are decided for her.  The whole person concept analysis is concluded
against her on the basis of the financial considerations trustworthiness concern.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.: Against Applicant
9
Subparagraph   1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c. to 1.m.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2.  Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. to 2.b.: For Applicant
Paragraph 3.  Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a. to 3.d.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties.
Her application for eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
Philip S. Howe
Administrative Judge