KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: During the past seven years, Applicant has accumulated numerous delinquent debts,
including two resulting from automobile repossessions.  She presented no evidence that any debts
were resolved and no evidence of a plan for resolving them.  Trustworthiness concerns based on
financial considerations are not mitigated.  Eligibility is denied.
CASENO: 06-09243.h1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE:  April 11, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-09243
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
LEROY F. FOREMAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
During the past seven years, Applicant has accumulated numerous delinquent debts,
including two resulting from automobile repossessions.  She presented no evidence that any debts
2
were resolved and no evidence of a plan for resolving them.  Trustworthiness concerns based on
financial considerations are not mitigated.  Eligibility is denied.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 12, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its preliminary decision to deny Applicant eligibility for
assignment to an ADP I/II/III position.  This action was taken Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified, Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan.
2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive), and Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R,
Personnel Security Program (Jan. 1987), as amended and modified (Regulation).  
The SOR alleged trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of the Regulation.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 29, 2006, and
elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s written case on January 25, 2007. A complete copy of the file of
relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions.
Applicant received the FORM on February 6, 2007, but did  not respond.  The case was assigned to
me on March 28, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 31-year-old claims associate for a defense contractor.  She has worked for her
current employer since September 1996.  She is unmarried and has two children, ages four and 13.
She has never held a security clearance or been found eligible for sensitive positions.
The SOR alleges seven delinquent debts totaling more than $26,000.  Applicant has admitted
all the debts.  (FORM Item 2).  The two largest debts were attributable to car repossessions.  The
debt of $2,992 alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a occurred when her car was wrecked, but the insurance was
insufficient to pay off the balance due on the loan, and it was repossessed in 2002.  The debt of
$20,741 alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f occurred when she purchased a car in March 2004 but could not afford
the payments.  It was repossessed in September 2004.  The remaining delinquent debts are for
jewelry ($1,190) (SOR ¶ 1.b), two medical bills for $104 and $80 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d), a telephone
bill of $707 (SOR ¶ 1.e), and a delinquent credit card account with a balance of $669 (SOR ¶ 1.f).
(FORM Item 5 at 1-2; FORM Items 6, 7, and 8.)
In June 2005, Applicant provided a security investigator with a personal financial statement
showing monthly net income of $1,939, monthly expenses of $806, monthly debt payments of
$1,243, and a net monthly shortfall of $109.  Her two largest expenses were a mortgage payment of
$423 and a car payment of $450.  (FORM Item 5 at 4.)  Her monthly shortfall is alleged in SOR ¶
1.h.  Applicant has submitted no evidence of payment, attempted payment, or a plan for resolving
the debts.
4
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines set out in Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2R, Personnel
Security Program (Jan. 1987), as amended and modified (Regulation), are used to make ADP
trustworthiness determinations.  Department of Defense contractor personnel are afforded the right
to the procedures contained in DOD Directive 5220.6 before any final unfavorable trustworthiness
determination may be made.  Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.  
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  Regulation
¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.  “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 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.”  Regulation
Appendix 8.  Each eligibility determination must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision
based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors
listed in the Regulation. 
In security clearance cases, the Government must initially 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.  These same
burdens of proof apply to trustworthiness determinations for ADP positions.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F—Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “[a]n individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds.”  Regulation Appendix 8 at 144.  A person who fails or
refuses to pay long-standing debts or is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible or careless
in his or her duty to protect sensitive information.  Two disqualifying conditions (DC) under this
guideline could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying in this case.  DC 1 applies
where an applicant has a history of not meeting his or her financial obligations.  Id.  DC 3 applies
where an applicant has exhibited inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.  Id.  
Since the government produced substantial evidence to raise DC 1 and DC 3, the burden
shifted to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  Directive
5
¶ E3.1.15.  Applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving
it is never shifted to the government.  See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).
A trustworthiness concern based on financial problems can be mitigated by showing the
delinquent debts were not recent (MC 1) or were isolated incidents (MC 2).  Regulation Appendix
8 at 144.  Applicant has multiple delinquent debts that remain unresolved.  I conclude MC 1 and MC
2 are not established.
Trustworthiness concerns arising from financial problems can be mitigated by showing they
are the result of conditions “largely beyond the person’s control” (MC 3).  Id.  Even if Applicant’s
financial difficulties initially arose due to circumstances beyond her control, it is appropriate to
consider whether she acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with her financial difficulties.
ISCR Case No. 02-02116 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 25, 2003).  The total loss of her car in 2002 was a
circumstance beyond her control, but Applicant presented no evidence of reasonable efforts to
resolve or compromise the debt that resulted from the insurance shortfall.  I conclude MC 3 is not
established.
A mitigating condition (MC 4) applies when an applicant “has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control.”  Regulation Appendix 8 at 144.  MC 4 is not established because Applicant has not
sought financial counseling.
A trustworthiness concern arising from financial problems can be mitigated by showing a
good-faith effort to resolve debts (MC 6).  Id.  The concept of good faith “requires a showing that
a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or
obligation.”  ISCR Case No. 99-0201, 1999 WL 1442346 at *4 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 1999).  Applicant
presented no evidence of any effort to resolve the debts alleged in the SOR.  I conclude MC 6 is not
established.
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to the specific disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, I have
considered: (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.  Regulation Appendix 8 at 132.  
Applicant is a mature woman who has been employed since graduating from high school, and
has worked for her current employer for more than 10 years.  Her delinquent debts have remained
unresolved for many years, and she has presented no evidence of a plan to resolve them.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and evaluating
all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
trustworthiness concerns based on based on financial considerations.  Accordingly, I conclude she
6
has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national
security to grant her eligibility for assignment to an ADP I/II/III position.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.h: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with national
security to grant Applicant eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position.  Eligibility is denied.
LeRoy F. Foreman
Administrative Judge