KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of financial problems, to include unpaid civil judgements and
criminal charges of forging checks and writing bad or worthless checks. He has just begun the
process of cleaning up his financial house, which includes about $30,000 in delinquent student loans.
Time will tell if he is able to do so. Eligibility is denied. 
CASENO: 06-15515.h1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE:  April 11, 2007
In re:
----------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-15515
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. LEONARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of financial problems, to include unpaid civil judgements and
criminal charges of forging checks and writing bad or worthless checks. He has just begun the
 By memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence1
and Security directed DOHA to utilize Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 to resolve contractor cases forwarded
to it for a trustworthiness determination, to include those involving ADP I, II, and III positions.  
 See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, dated August 30, 2006, Subject:2
Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December
29, 2005). 
2
process of cleaning up his financial house, which includes about $30,000 in delinquent student loans.
Time will tell if he is able to do so. Eligibility is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed Applicant’s eligibility to
occupy an automated data processing (ADP) position designated as an ADP I, II, or III position to
support a contract with the Defense Department.  As a result of the review, the agency recommended1
Applicant’s case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether Applicant is
eligible to occupy such a position. 
Acting under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated  January 2, 1992, as amended
(Directive), DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant on September 22, 2006. The
SOR—which is equivalent to an administrative complaint—details the factual basis for the action
and alleges a concern under Guideline F for financial considerations. Under Guideline F, the SOR
alleges that Applicant has 17 delinquent debts for more than $40,000.
In addition to the Directive, this case is brought under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information approved by the President on
December 29, 2005. The revised guidelines were then modified by the Defense Department, effective
September 1, 2006. They supersede or replace the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to the
Directive and Appendix 8 to DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, and they apply to all adjudications and other
determinations where an SOR has been issued on September 1, 2006, or thereafter.  They apply to2
this case because (1) the SOR is dated September 22, 2006, and (2) this case qualifies as an other
determination. Both the Directive and the Regulation are pending formal amendment. A copy of the
revised guidelines was provided to Applicant along with the SOR. 
Applicant timely replied to the SOR in writing on October 11, 2006. Subsequently, in
December 2006, he indicated he did not wish to have a hearing. 
On January 25, 2007, the government submitted its written case consisting of all relevant and
material information that could be adduced at a hearing. This so-called file of relevant material
(FORM) was mailed to Applicant and it was received by him on January 31, 2007. Applicant’s reply
to the FORM is a three-page letter dated February 26, 2007. Department counsel having no
objections, it is admitted into the record as Exhibit A. The case was assigned to me March 13, 2007.
 
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
In response to the SOR, Applicant denied the indebtedness alleged in subparagraphs 1.d, 1.e,
1.g, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.l. He admitted the indebtedness in the other 11 subparagraphs, although he
claimed the debt in 1.k was the same as the debt in 1.j. His admissions are incorporated herein as
findings of fact. And I make the following findings of fact.
1. Applicant is a 27-year-old customer service representative for a health-care company that
provides services to the Defense Department. He has worked in this job since December 2004. His
job involves having access to unclassified information (for example, names, personal medical
information, etc.). 
2. In conjunction with his employment, Applicant completed a questionnaire for public trust
positions (Standard Form 85P) in December 2004. In response to Question 20 about his police
record, he disclosed, among other things, a bad check/forgery offense in 2000. In response to
Question 22 about his financial record, he disclosed two accounts, a student loan and a credit card,
that were then over 180-days delinquent. 
3. Applicant has a history of financial problems. As part of the background investigation, a
credit report was obtained in July 2005. The public record section of the report revealed one unpaid
civil judgment for $51. The trade section of the report revealed two student loans for a total of more
than $30,000 where the creditor could not locate the consumer. The remaining five accounts in the
trade section were all collection accounts. And the collections section of the report revealed three
accounts in a collection status. An additional credit report was obtained in August 2006, and this
report further revealed or confirmed Applicant’s unfavorable financial history. For example, it
revealed two unpaid civil judgments for $51 and $42 and several collection accounts.
4. The SOR alleges that Applicant is indebted to multiple creditors for nearly $40,000 in total.
The total includes about $30,000 for the two student loans as set forth in subparagraphs 1.j and 1.k.
Applicant has provided written responses about his indebtedness, to include his initial reply to the
SOR, his December 2006 reply, and answers to interrogatories. In doing so, he has asserted that he
has taken various actions. But other than his assertions, he has not provided any documentary
evidence establishing proof of payment, proof of settlement, proof of a repayment agreement, or
proof of some step taken to dispute or resolve the debts in question. For example, such proof might
include court records (satisfaction of judgments), receipts, copies of cancelled checks, account
statements, bank statements, and correspondence (by mail or e-mail) verifying the status of
delinquent accounts or repayment agreements with creditors. 
5. Concerning the debts he denies, the available evidence establishes the SOR allegations. For
example, subparagraphs 1.d and 1.e, concern unpaid civil judgments for $42 and $51, respectively.
These unpaid judgments are established by the August 2006 credit report, and they appear to be
judgments taken against Applicant by a property management company. Applicant has not provided
information to refute these judgments. 
6. Subparagraph 1.g concerns a $146 collection account initially owed to a utility company. It
is established by the 2005 and 2006 credit reports. Applicant has not provided information to refute
this debt.
4
7. Subparagraphs 1.h, 1.i, and 1.l concern collection accounts for $50, $47, and $40,
respectively. In his reply to the SOR, Applicant denied the debts and explained that because he
served time in jail (due to forgery or bad check charges) instead of paying the debts and that the debts
should be cleared on that basis. In his reply to the FORM, Applicant acknowledged that he still owes
these debts.  
8. Subparagraphs 1.j and 1.k allege two delinquent student loans for a total of more than
$30,000. In his reply to the SOR, he claimed this involved a single account. The 2005 credit report
reveals two student loan accounts with different account numbers, different balances, different past-
due amounts, and different dates associated with opening the accounts. Given these circumstances,
I find these allegations involve two student loans. In addition, he acknowledged in his reply to the
FORM that he found the paperwork on his student loans and he owes around $30,000. He expects
to start making payments in June 2007.  
9. Beyond the debts in the SOR, Applicant disclosed in his reply to the FORM that he has tax
problems. He contacted the IRS about his taxes for tax year 2004. If his appeal is unsuccessful, he
expects to start making payments in June 2007. He has filed returns with the IRS for 2005 and 2006,
and payment for 2006 was to be made in February 2007. He is waiting for refunds from the state for
tax years 2005 and 2006 so he can pay his federal taxes for 2005. 
10. Applicant believes he has arrived at a budget (which he did not submit) to pay off his debts
or start to pay by the end of 2007. With his current job and the support of his girlfriend, he believes
he can get control of his debts. He knows he is responsible for resolving his financial problems and
believes he is now at a point in his life where he is able to do so. 
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline F, a concern typically exists due to significant unpaid debts. 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, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding sensitive
information.   
Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, a concern is raised by significant unpaid
debts. Applicant has a history of financial problems. He has delinquent consumer debts plus
delinquent student loans for about $30,000. His financial problems include a forgery charge when
he forged two checks of a former roommate as well as writing some bad or worthless checks. In
addition, as volunteered by Applicant, he has tax problems with the IRS. It appears he owed the IRS
for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006 when he replied to the FORM. Viewing the record evidence as
a whole, the following the disqualifying conditions (DC) under Guideline F apply: (1) inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts; (2) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (3) deceptive
or illegal financial practices as evidenced by the forgery and bad check offenses. I have not applied
the DC concerning failure to file annual federal income tax returns because Applicant indicated he
has now filed his federal and state tax returns. To sum up, the record evidence shows a pattern of
financial immaturity and irresponsibility over a period of years. 
5
I reviewed the mitigating conditions under the guideline and conclude none apply. He has
not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial considerations concern. In particular, the
record evidence is insufficient to establish that he has made a good-faith effort to pay or otherwise
resolve his indebtedness. I reach this conclusion primarily because Applicant has not documented
the actions (to include payments) he claims he has taken to address his financial problems. In
addition to the lack of documentation, time will tell if he will follow through and take the necessary
steps to clean up his financial house. 
At this point, Applicant’s history of financial problems—which includes forgery of checks
and passing bad checks as well as $30,000 in delinquent student loans—militates against granting
him eligibility for an ADP position. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant failed to establish it is
in the interests of national security to grant him eligibility for an ADP I, II, or III position. In reaching
this conclusion, I also considered Applicant’s case under the whole-person concept and my whole-
person analysis does not support a favorable outcome for Applicant. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Here are my conclusions for each allegation in the SOR:
SOR Paragraph 1–Guideline F: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs a–q : Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests
of national security to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for an ADP I, II, or III position.
Eligibility is denied. 
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge