KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to the late
1990s. As of the date she answered the SOR, she had 10 accounts, totaling approximately $20,676
that have been delinquent for many years. Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to show she is in
control of her finances, is not overextended, and that she has a track record of financial
responsibility. Furthermore, she deliberately falsified her application for a public trust position.
Eligibility for assignment to public-trust position is denied. 
CASENO: 06-14343.h1
DATE: 04/17/2007
DATE:  April 17, 2007
In re:
---------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-14343
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JUAN J. RIVERA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to the late
1990s. As of the date she answered the SOR, she had 10 accounts, totaling approximately $20,676
that have been delinquent for many years. Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to show she is in
control of her finances, is not overextended, and that she has a track record of financial
responsibility. Furthermore, she deliberately falsified her application for a public trust position.
Eligibility for assignment to public-trust position is denied. 
  Government Exhibit (GE) 1.1
  See Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960, as amended,2
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan.
2, 1992) (Directive), as amended. A memorandum from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence
and Security) to Director, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), dated November 19, 2004 states DOHA
shall utilize provisions of the Directive to resolve contractor cases involving trustworthiness determinations. 
  Government Exhibit (GE) 2 (Applicant’s answer to the SOR).3
  GE 4 (Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF85P), dated December 8, 2004), unless indicated4
otherwise, is the source for the facts in this paragraph.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  The SOR informed Applicant of1
the reasons why DOHA recommends Applicant’s case be submitted to an administrative judge for
a determination that she is not eligible to occupy an ADP I/II/III position.2
On September 8, 2006, Applicant answered the SOR (Answer).  She admitted the SOR3
allegations under ¶¶1.a - 1.f, 1.h, and 1.i. She denied the allegations under ¶¶1.g, 1.j, and 2.a,
provided explanations, and requested a decision without a hearing. On January 10, 2007, Department
Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) which was mailed to Applicant on January
12, 2007. She acknowledged receipt of the FORM on January 23, 2007, and did not object to
anything contained in the FORM or submit additional information for consideration within the 30-
day period provided to her. The case was assigned to me on March 22, 2007.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The government moved to amend the SOR by deleting from its first paragraph the words
“paragraph 3-614, Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R and.” The motion is granted
without objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein as findings of facts.
After a thorough review of the pleadings and the evidence, I make the following additional findings
of facts:
Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor. She has
worked for her current employer since December 2004.  She is single, and has a three-year-old4
daughter. There is no evidence Applicant has mishandled or compromised classified information
while at her current job. 
  The information in this paragraph was gathered from the credit bureau reports GE 5-7. 5
4
In March 2004, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions, Standard
Form (SF) 85P. She answered “No” to question 22b, and failed to list any debts that were more than
180 days delinquent. The subsequent background investigation addressed Applicant’s financial
situation and included the review of her December 2004 (GE 5), June 2006 (GE 6), and January
2007 (GE 7) credit bureau reports (CBR). 
In her September 2006 answers to the SOR (GE 2), Applicant admitted all the financial
allegations with the exception of SOR ¶¶1.g and 1.j. Concerning ¶ 1.g, she stated that if the debt
concerned a Master card or Visa credit card account she would admit it. Regarding ¶1.j, she claimed
to have no knowledge of the account and stated she would have to find information about it.
Concerning ¶2.a, she explained “she did not know the Federal government had anything to do with
credit cards.” (GE 2) 
The delinquent/charged off debts alleged in the SOR have the following collection assignment
and/or charged off dates:  ¶1.a - the collection assignment date was June 1999; ¶1.b - the collection5
assignment date was November 1999; ¶1.c - the date of last action was June 2001 and the charged
off date was February 2002; ¶1.d - the date of last action was August 2001, with a charged off date
of January 2002; ¶1.e - the date of last action was June 2001; ¶1.f - the date of last action was
September 2002; ¶1.g - the date of last action was November 2001; ¶1.h - the date of last action was
June 2002; ¶1.i - the date of last action was November 2003; and ¶1.j - the collection date was June
2005.
According to her SF 85P, she was employed from August 1996 to November 2003,
unemployed from November 2003 to December 2004, and employed from December 2004 to the date
of the hearing. She presented no evidence to show that she was taking care of/resolving her debts in
the form of canceled checks, receipts of payments, and settlement agreements with creditors. Nor did
she present evidence to explain how she acquired her debts; why they became delinquent; what
circumstances beyond her control, if any, prevented her from paying her delinquent debts; what
efforts, if any, she has taken to pay, settle, or resolve the debts; the status of her current financial
situation; or whether she has participated in financial counseling; or whether she has taken any
measures to avoid future financial problems. 
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in evaluating an
Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position. The administrative judge must take into account
both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative guideline applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case. The guidelines are not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion
for or against an Applicant. Each decision must reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive, and the whole person concept.
  Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.1.6
  Directive, ¶ E2.A5.1.1.7
  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).8
  ISCR Case No. 98-0761, at p. 2 (December 27, 1999)(Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less9
than a preponderance of the evidence.); ISCR Case No. 02-12199, at p. 3  (April 3, 2006)(Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the record.); Directive, ¶ E3.1.32.1.
  Egan, 484 U.S. 518, at 528, 531.10
  See Egan; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.11
  Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.1.12
5
Having considered the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline F (Financial Considerations)6
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct)  are the applicable relevant adjudicative guidelines.7
BURDEN OF PROOF
The purpose of a security clearance decision is to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to consider an applicant suitable for a public trust position.  A person who holds8
a public trust position enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and
confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest to ensure each applicant possesses
the requisite judgement, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests
as his or her own. 
The government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in the SOR. To
meet its burden, the government must establish by substantial evidence  a prima facie case that it is9
not clearly consistent with the national interest for the applicant to have access to classified
information. The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the
government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant carries a heavy
burden of persuasion.  The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution10
of any reasonable doubt about an applicant's suitability for access to classified information in favor
of protecting national security.  The same rules apply in trustworthiness determinations.11
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), a security concern exists when a person has
significant unpaid debts. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk to engage in illegal
or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations.  Similarly, an individual who is12
financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his/her obligation to
protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life can often
indicate how a person may behave in other aspects of life.
  Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.3.3.13
  Directive, ¶ E2.A5.1.1.14
6
It was Applicant’s responsibility to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government's allegations
against her. She failed to provide sufficient evidence to do so. Based on the limited evidence
provided, I conclude that as of January 2007 (the day she acknowledged receipt of the FORM)
Applicant had 10 delinquent/charged off accounts that are still outstanding, owing approximately
$20,676. Applicant’s financial problems are recent, not isolated, and ongoing. Applicant’s
unwillingness or inability to honor her financial obligations is evidenced by the delinquent debts she
has been carrying for years, and her failure to show meaningful efforts to repay creditors or otherwise
resolve her financial situation. Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (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 in this case. 
In January 2007, Applicant was provided with a copy of the FORM in which the government
strongly argued that Applicant had failed to demonstrate she had resolved the debts alleged in the
SOR, that she was financially solvent, that she had a track record of financial responsibility, and/or
that circumstances beyond her control mitigated her financial condition. Notwithstanding the
government’s concerns, Applicant did not answer the FORM and failed to provide documents to
mitigate the concerns. 
Applicant raised facts that may be considered as circumstances beyond her control, i.e., her
13 months period of unemployment. Notwithstanding, under the totality of the circumstances of her
case, Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to support the applicability of Financial
Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 3: the conditions that resulted in the behavior were
largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business turndown).  Applicant13
failed to provide sufficient information to support the applicability of any of the Financial
Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC).
Applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to show she has dealt responsibly with her financial
obligations. She presented no evidence of meaningful efforts taken to resolve her debts before receipt
of the SOR (i.e., paid debts, settlements, negotiations, payment plans, budgets, financial
assistance/counseling). She failed to present sufficient evidence to show she is not overextended or
that her financial problems will not be a concern in the future. Applicant’s financial history and lack
of favorable evidence preclude a finding that she has established a track record of financial
responsibility. Applicant’s available evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate she has taken control
of her financial situation and is capable of overcoming her financial difficulties. 
Under Guideline E, personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks the ultimate
question – whether a person’s past conduct instills confidence the person can be trusted to properly
safeguard classified information. An applicant's conduct is a security concern if it involves
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations. Such behavior could indicate that the person may not properly
safeguard classified information.14
7
The government established that Applicant failed to disclose the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶1.a -
1.i in her response to SF 85P question 22b. Applicant’s explanation in her answer to SOR ¶2.a (that
she did not know that the Federal government had anything to do with credit cards), in addition to her
age, level of education, employment, the number and value of her debts, and the fact that she acquired
the debts, convinces me she deliberately failed to disclose the delinquent debts. It is not likely that
she could have forgotten all of her delinquent debts. Furthermore, Applicant clearly demonstrated a
lack of interest in establishing her financial responsibility. Considering all the available evidence in
this case, I find Applicant did intend to falsify her SF 86 and to mislead the government. Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2: the deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal
history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness,
or award fiduciary responsibilities, applies.
I carefully considered the applicability of all the Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions and
conclude that none apply. The evidence available in this case is not sufficient to support the
applicability of any of the mitigating conditions. 
I have carefully weighed all evidence, and I applied the disqualifying and mitigating
conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guidelines. I specifically considered Applicant’s
answer to the SOR, and the fact that there is no evidence that she ever mishandled or caused the
compromise of classified information. Considering all available information, and the whole person
concept, I find Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct
security concerns.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings regarding each SOR allegation as required by Directive Section E3.1.25 are
as follows:
Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations (Guideline F) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.j Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct (Guideline E) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a Against Applicant
8
DECISION
 
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for assignment to a public-trust
position. Eligibility is denied.
Juan J. Rivera
Administrative Judge