KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 49 years old and employed by a defense contractor as a systems analyst. 
She has delinquent debt totaling over $54,000.  The largest debt is for $42,000 for the remainder
on a repossessed mobile home.  She presented no information concerning payments or attempts
to pay the delinquent debts.  She listed only one debt as past due over 180 days in response to a
question on her position of public trust application.  Applicant has not mitigated security
concerns for financial considerations and personal conduct.  Eligibility is denied. 
CASENO: 06-13121.h1
DATE: 04/27/2007
DATE:  April 27, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-13121
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
THOMAS M. CREAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Item 4.1
Item 2.2
2
Applicant is 49 years old and employed by a defense contractor as a systems analyst.  She
has delinquent debt totaling over $54,000.  The largest debt is for $42,000 for the remainder on a
repossessed mobile home.  She presented no information concerning payments or attempts to pay
the delinquent debts.  She listed only one debt as past due over 180 days in response to a question
on her position of public trust application.  Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for
financial considerations and personal conduct.  Eligibility is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 1, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision to deny an application for a position of public
trust for Applicant.  The action was taken under Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R,
Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended (Regulation), and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR in an undated response
received at DOHA on August 11, 2006.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Regulation.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 25, 2006, admitting all of the factual
allegations under Guideline F, but denying the security concern for financial considerations, and
admitting the factual allegation under Guideline E, but denying the security concern for personal
conduct.  She elected to have the matter decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on January 10, 2007.
Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on January 17, 2007, and was
provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
disqualifying conditions.  She did not provide any further information.  The case was assigned to me
on March 22, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 49 years old and employed by a defense contractor as a systems analyst.  As a
condition of her employment, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions,
Standard Form 85P, on August 19, 2004.   In response to question 22b asking if she was now over1
180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation, Applicant responded “yes” listing one debt
on a vehicle.  Subsequent investigation shows Applicant had 20 delinquent debts, some of which
were more than 180 days past due, for a total debt of $54,274.93.  Applicant admitted all of these
debts.2
Item 5, (credit report, dated October 8, 2004); Item 6, (credit report, dated June 3, 2006); Item 7, (credit report,3
dated January 10, 2007).
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.5
3
The largest single debt of $42, 455 was for the remainder from the repossession of a mobile
home.  There were 16 accounts placed for collection totaling $4,031.  Half of the debts were for less
than $100.  The debts include unpaid medical bills, unpaid retail accounts, a cable company bill, and
unpaid utility bills.  The debts go back to 1999 and have not been paid.  One debt was for an
automobile loan charged off for $5, 973.  A judgment was entered against Applicant in December
2004, for an unpaid medical bill in the amount of $1,591.93.  The judgment has not been satisfied.
There was one debt past due for $224 to a financial institution creditor.   3
Fifteen of the debts were placed for collection from January 1999 to October 2003, more than
180 days prior to Applicant’s completion of the SF 85P in August 2004.  The automobile loan
Applicant listed on the SF 85P was included in this list having been charged off in October 2003.
This was the only debt listed on the application as past due more than 180 days.  Applicant did not
presented information concerning how the debts were accumulated or payments on the debts or even
attempts to pay the debts.
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.”   To be eligible to occupy an Information4
Systems Position designated ADP II/III, an applicant must meet the security guidelines contained in
the Regulation.  The standard that must be met 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.5
The Regulation sets out the adjudicative guidelines for making trustworthiness determinations.
Appendix 8 of the Regulations sets forth adjudicative guidelines for determining trustworthiness, and
lists the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions for each guideline.  The adjudicative
guidelines at issue in this case are:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: A security concern exists for an individual who is
financially irresponsible.  An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to protect classified information.
Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a
person may behave in other aspects of life.
DoD 5200.2-R, Appendix 8.6
DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C8.2.1.7
Directive ¶ E3.1.14.8
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.9
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 10
ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct. 7,11
1993))
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Directive ¶ E2.2.2.12
4
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: A security concern exists for conduct involving questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations.  Any of these characteristics in a person could indicate that
the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guidelines are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions section 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 administrative
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.  An administrative judge should consider: (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 applicant’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 of recurrence.6
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the rights to the procedures contained in the DoD
Directive before any final unfavorable access determination may be made.   Initially, the Government7
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, Applicant is8
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts.   An applicant “has9
the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his security clearance.”   “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection10
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security
suitability.”   “Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with11
national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.”   Each clearance decision must12
be fair, impartial, and a commonsense decision based on the relevant and material facts and
circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors listed in the Regulation, Appendix 8.  A
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.13
5
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 necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.   It is merely an13
indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines have established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
I carefully considered all of the facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.  I
reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Applicant’s delinquent debts reported by credit reports and admitted by Applicant brings the
matter within Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not
meeting financial obligations), and E2.A6.1.2.3 (an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts).
Applicant provides no explanation how or why the debts were accumulated.  I conclude the above
disqualifying conditions have been established.
I considered Financial Consideration Mitigating Conditions E2.A6.1.3.1 (The behavior was
not recent), and E2.A6.1.3.2 (It was an isolated incident).  Applicant has not satisfied the debts so
the debts are current.  The debts range from unpaid medical bills, to utility and retail bills.  The debts
are not recent and not isolated, since they are long standing, not paid, and from various sources.  The
mitigating conditions do not apply.
I considered all of the other Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition and determine
none apply.  Applicant presented no information concerning her actions to pay her debts.  There is
no evidence of any condition beyond her control that caused her indebtedness so 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)
does not apply.  Applicant did not present any information on any financial counseling she sought or
received so 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 is under control) does not apply. 
Applicant presented no information concerning any attempt to repay any of the debts so MC
E2.A6.1.3.6 (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) does not apply.  Applicant admitted to the debts and took no action to pay or resolve
them.  Applicant presented no information raising any other mitigating condition, so she has failed
to carry her burden to establish mitigation for her debts.  I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns for financial considerations.
Applicant’s failure to list on her public trust application all debts past due over 180 days
brings the matter under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from the personal security
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations . . .
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness). Applicant admitted she knew about the
debts, but answered the financial question incorrectly.  Since she knew of the debt, her false answer
was deliberate and misleading.  I find Applicant deliberately failed to provide correct information in
6
response to question 22b on the public trust position application.
I carefully considered all of the circumstances in light of the “whole person” concept.  I
conclude Applicant is not eligible for a position of public trust.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations 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. thru 1.t.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national security to grant or continue eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties
for Applicant.  Eligibility is denied.
Thomas M. Crean
Administrative Judge