KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has 12 unpaid, old debts. Eleven of the twelve Statement Of Reasons (SOR)
debts are time-barred and not legally collectible. Four debts were not established and two debts are
duplicates. Her debts occurred when she missed work following surgery and nonpayment of wages.
She has worked for her employer for 18 years without any violations of company rules and policies.
She pays her regular bills in a timely fashion, raises her godson, and complies with the law. She has
mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility fora public trust position is
granted.
CASENO: 06-09302.h1
DATE: 04/24/2007
DATE:  April 24, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: ---------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-09302
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY E. HENRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank. Jr., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
 This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; and  Memorandum1
from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Counterintelligence and Security, titled "Adjudication of Trustworthiness
Cases," dated November 19, 2004.
Applicant’s response to the SOR, dated September 26, 2006.2
2
Applicant has 12 unpaid, old debts. Eleven of the twelve Statement Of Reasons (SOR) debts
are time-barred and not legally collectible. Four debts were not established and two debts are
duplicates. Her debts occurred when she missed work following surgery and nonpayment of wages.
She has worked for her employer for 18 years without any violations of company rules and policies.
She pays her regular bills in a timely fashion, raises her godson, and complies with the law. She has
mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility fora public trust position is
granted.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On August 17, 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 August 31, 2006,1
DOHA issued Applicant a SOR detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR, which is in essence
the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.
In a sworn statement dated September 26, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations
and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on December 21, 2006, and issued a notice
of hearing on January 29, 2007. I conducted a hearing on February 15, 2007. The government
submitted six exhibits (GE) which were marked and admitted into the record as GE 1-6 without
objection. Applicant submitted three exhibits (App Ex), which were marked and admitted as App
Ex A-C. Applicant testified on her own behalf. I held the record open until March 2, 2007, to allow
Applicant to submit further documents, which she did. Applicant submitted five additional
documents, which were marked and admitted without objection. Applicant also requested additional
time to submit further documentation. I granted her request in an Order dated March 8, 2007, and
held the record open until April 2, 2007. No additional documentation has been received. DOHA
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on March 9, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In her SOR response, Applicant admitted to SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.g, 1.h, 1.j, and 1.l,
under Guideline F. She denied any knowledge of the remaining allegations.  Applicant’s admissions2
are incorporated herein. In addition, after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits,
and testimony, I make the following findings of fact.
GE 1(Application for position of public trust, dated August 17, 2004) at 1, 2, 5; Tr. at 18-20.3
Tr. at 21, 23-24, 36-45.4
App Ex H (Earnings and leave statements, dated March 2, 2007 and February 2, 2007); Tr. at 35-40.5
All SOR debts except 1.g are barred from collection by applicable statute of limitations (SL).6
GE 5 (Credit report, dated October 21, 2004); and GE 6 (Credit report, dated April 17, 2006).7
3
Applicant, a 47-year-old woman seeking a position of public trust, works as a claims
associate for a Department of Defense contractor. She has worked for her employer for 18 years. She
is single and is raising her godson, who is now 13 years old. She receives no child support from his
parents. Her elderly, retired, and ill mother lives with her.3
Beginning in 1989, Applicant experienced several medical problems, which caused her to
miss time from work and incur medical bills. Most recently, she underwent surgery in 2001 and
again in 2002. She missed significant time from work after each surgery. She lost salary and incurred
medical expenses not covered by her health insurance. Subsequent to her surgery in 2002, her doctor
diagnosed diabetes. She also developed diabetic neuropathy, diverticulosis, and esophagitis. Her
doctor prescribed six medications, including neurontin, a muscle relaxer, and glucophage, all of
which she takes daily. She recently changed health care plans, which reduced her prescription drug
costs from about $300 a month to approximately $180 a month, plus the $40 monthly cost for
diabetic testing strips.4
Applicant’s gross monthly pay is $2,334 plus occasional overtime. Her net monthly pay
varies, but is approximately $1,475. Her monthly expenses include $400 for food, $440 for utilities,
$120 for gasoline, $125 for a loan, $260 for medical expenses and prescriptions, and $65 for
miscellaneous expenses. Her total monthly expenses of $1,410 leave about $65 a month to pay her
debts.5
A review of Applicant’s credit reports dated October 21, 2004, April 14, 2006, and the SOR
shows 12 unpaid debts totaling $24,189.  The current status of these debts is as follows:6 7
SOR ¶ TYPE OF DEBT, DATE AMOUNT CURRENT STATUS
1.a Medical bill (2002) $     708.00 Unpaid (barred SL)
1.b. Credit card (2002) $  1,358.00 Unpaid (barred SL)
1.c. Collection account (2002)
(unidentified creditor)
$  1,383.00 Unpaid (barred SL), not
established
1.d. Collection account (2003)
(unidentified creditor)
$  2,444.00 Unpaid (barred SL) not
established
1.e. telephone account (2003) $     696.00
(originally $342)
Unpaid, disputes
This debt is not listed on either credit report. Id.8
GE 6 indicates that this account was purchased by the creditor listed in allegation 1.d. The SOR debt amount9
listed for this account is incorrect, as neither credit report lists a second account with this creditor.
GE 5, supra note 6; GE 6, supra note 6; Tr. at 27-29, 30-31.10
App Ex A (Letter, dated February 1, 2007);App Ex B (Undated letter); App Ex C (Undated letter); App Ex11
D (Performance evaluation, dated February 8, 2005); App Ex E (Performance evaluation, dated January 22, 2004); App
Ex F (Performance evaluation, dated January 16, 2003).
4
1.f. Collection account (2002)
(unidentified creditor)
$     560.00 Unpaid same as allegation
1.c
1.g. Car repossession (2005) $12,416.00 Unpaid
1.h. Medical bill (2002) $       25.00 Unpaid (barred SL)
1.i. Medical bill (2003) $     140.00 Unpaid (barred SL) not
established
1.j. Medical bill (March 2004) $  1,176.00 Unpaid (barred SL)
1.k. Medical bill (date unknown) $     371.00 Unpaid8
1.l. Collection account (2003) $ 2,912.00 Unpaid (barred SL),
duplication of allegation
1.d9
After missing two car payments, Applicant called the creditor and requested that she be
allowed to make small payments on her overdue balance. The creditor declined to accept her offer;
instead the creditor demanded that she pay the full past due amount or her car would be repossessed.
She could not pay the full overdue amount. She did not recognized many of the unidentified debts
listed in the SOR. She contacted several financial counseling agencies by telephone, but has not
retained a counseling service. Her credit reports reflect that she has paid other debt in a timely
manner.10
Applicant’s last three performance reviews  consistently reflect that she performs her work
at the “sometimes exceeds expectations” level. Her co-workers and friends describe her as friendly,
dependable, trustworthy and a team player. During her 18 years of employment, she has never been
disciplined for, nor has she violated, company rules and regulations regarding beneficiary privacy.
She scrupulously follows the rules in the work place.11
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 …
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).12
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.13
 Id.14
 Id.15
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.16
5
that will give that person access to such information.”  In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding12
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. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth
personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under
each guideline. The adjudicative guideline at issue in this case are: 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations - An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate
funds to meet financial obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligation
to protect classified or sensitive information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly
in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other
aspects of life.
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security 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 administrative13
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 following14
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.   15
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.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,16
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.17
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).18
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.19
6
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is17
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt18
as to whether 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 determinations19
for access to sensitive positions.
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 - Financial Considerations.
Financial Considerations
Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC)
E2.A6.1.2.1 (A history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3 (Inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply to Applicant’s case as to allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, and
1.j. Based on the credit reports of record, I find 1.d. and 1.l are the same debt, the amount owed is
$2,444, and these FC DC apply to the allegation. Given the length of time these debts have existed,
Applicant has a history of not paying her debts. The debts remain unpaid, therefore, she has either
been unwilling or unable to pay these debts.
The government has not established its case as to allegations 1.c, 1.d., 1.f, 1.i, 1.k, and 1.l.
Although she initially admitted the debts identified in these allegations, Applicant denied these debts
at the hearing because she did not know to whom she owed this money. These allegations either do
not identify the name of the creditor or simply list a credit collection agency, without identifying the
underlying creditor. Thus, Applicant is not on notice as to whom she owes these debts and cannot
make any inquiries to pay the debt. The debt identified in allegation 1.k is not listed on either credit
report. The government has not established through its evidence that these debts belong to Applicant
because the credit reports lack sufficient information to give Applicant notice as to whom she owes
money.
I considered the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC). FC MC
E2.A6.1.3.1 (The behavior was not recent), and FC MC E2.A6.1.3.2 (The behavior was isolated) do
not apply because Applicant has numerous, delinquent financial accounts which are several years old.
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.3 (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)) applies. In 2001 and 2002, Applicant incurred financial losses
See ISCR Case No. 04-07360 at 2 (App. Bd. Sept. 26, 2006) (stating partial credit was available under FCMC20
6 for debts being resolved through garnishment). 
7
because of medical problems. She missed significant time from work while convalescing from
surgery. She lost income as her absence was not fully covered by her accumulated leave and company
leave policies. Although she had medical insurance, it did not pay all her medical expenses, leaving
a portion of the bills for her to pay.
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4 (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control) does not apply.
Although Applicant contacted several financial counseling agencies, she did not retain a service and
receive financial counseling.
FC MC E2.1.3.6 (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) is not applicable as Applicant has not made any effort to resolve her
outstanding debt issues.
She does, however, receive some credit in the whole person analysis, infra, for the application
of the 3-year South Carolina statute of limitations, which applies to all the SOR debts established by
the government, except allegation 1.g. See S.C. Code. Ann. § 15-3-530.  The South Carolina Court20
of Appeals succinctly explained the societal and judicial value of application of the statute of
limitations:
Statutes of limitations embody important public policy considerations in that they
stimulate activity, punish negligence and promote repose by giving security and
stability to human affairs. The cornerstone policy consideration underlying statutes of
limitations is the laudable goal of law to promote and achieve finality in litigation.
Significantly, statutes of limitations provide potential defendants with certainty that
after a set period of time, they will not be ha[led] into court to defend time-barred
claims. Moreover, limitations periods discourage plaintiffs from sitting on their rights.
Statutes of limitations are, indeed, fundamental to our judicial system.
Carolina Marine Handling, Inc. v. Lasch, 363 S.C. 169, 175-76, 609 S.E.2d 548, 552 (S.C. Ct. App.
2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Elimination of most of her delinquent debt load through the statute of limitations has ended
her potential vulnerability to improper financial inducements because she is no longer “financially
overextended,” but it does not negate her past conduct in not paying her outstanding debts.
Whole Person Analysis
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
See ISCR Case No. 04-06242 at 2 (App. Bd. June 28, 2006).21
8
merits, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature
thinking, and careful analysis.
Applicant has worked for 18 years for her current employer, a Defense Department contractor.
She has followed company rules and has not violated the privacy rights of the beneficiaries she serves.
She performs her job well and is respected by her co-workers and friends. She undertook the
responsibility of raising a godson 13 years ago. Applicant is a responsible individual, who has
maintained the same employment for many years and who follows the general rules of society. She
does not have a police record or problems with drugs or alcohol.
About six years ago, her medical problems became more severe and required surgery to
resolve. She lost time from work, for which she received less than full pay. She also incurred medical
debt, which she could not pay. Her current income level leaves little room for her to repay her old
debts. She does keep current on her living expenses and has timely paid many of her bills in the past.
Except for the money still due on her car repossession, she has no debt for which she is legally
responsible. She got behind in her car payments, not because she spent money frivolously or
unwisely, but simply because her income level would not cover both her car payment and her
unexpected medical expenses. She attempted to resolve the missed car payments, but the creditor
refused to work with her. She did not avoid paying her bills; she simply had no extra money to pay
these extra expenses. The absence of significant, new delinquent debt over in two years and a change
in health plans to help pay her medical expenses are additional factors which evidence rehabilitation,
positive behavior changes, and self-discipline in regards to her finances. The potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress is low because she is current on her recent debts, and has been
steadily employed for the last 18 years. She is very conscious of her income limitations and has shown
an ability to live within her monthly income. Unexpected losses in income or unexpected bills have
a significant and immediate impact on her finances. Her attitude about her finances and her adherence
to her budget support a determination of trustworthiness.
In sum, in the absence of unanticipated and unusual expenses, the likelihood of new debt
problems is low. Although all of the SOR debts remain unpaid, there is little likelihood that this
unpaid debt would present a security clearance problem as she is not legally liable for 11 of these
debts under state law, four of which were not established as hers and two of which are duplicates of
other identified debts. She is a long-term employee with a good performance record. She has not been
disciplined for violation of patient privacy issues and there is little likelihood she would violate these
privacy rights because of her existing debt problems. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating
conditions, and all the facts and circumstances, in the context of the whole person,  I conclude she21
has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns pertaining to financial considerations.
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:
9
SOR ¶ 1-Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-l       For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the evidence presented in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is granted.
Mary E Henry
Administrative Judge