KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant, a single parent, obtained credit cards to purchase merchandise and incurred
medical bills while a college student. She then ignored payment of her bills. She has matured
since her college graduation six years ago. In the last year, she assumed responsibility for
payment of her delinquent debt. She has systematically paid her debts, one or two at a time. She
did not intentionally falsify her answers on her SF-85P. She has mitigated the government’s
concerns regarding her finances. The government did not establish its case under Guidelines E
and J. Eligibility is granted.
CASENO: 06-17864.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE: April 30, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-17864
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY E. HENRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
 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.
Tr. at 11.2
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a single parent, obtained credit cards to purchase merchandise and incurred
medical bills while a college student. She then ignored payment of her bills. She has matured since
her college graduation six years ago. In the last year, she assumed responsibility for payment of her
delinquent debt. She has systematically paid her debts, one or two at a time. She did not intentionally
falsify her answers on her SF-85P. She has mitigated the government’s concerns regarding her
finances. The government did not establish its case under Guidelines E and J. Eligibility is granted.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On November 7, 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 November 29, 2006,1
DOHA issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR,
which is in essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).
In a sworn statement dated December 28, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations
and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned this case to me on February 8, 2007, and issued a notice of
hearing on March 2, 2007. At the hearing on March 21, 2007, Applicant indicated that she received
the notice of the hearing 15 days prior to the hearing. I conducted the hearing as scheduled.  The2
government submitted seven exhibits (GE) which were marked and admitted into the record as GE
1-7, without objection. Applicant submitted 16 exhibits (App Ex), which were marked and admitted
as App Ex A-P, without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on April 10, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In her SOR response, Applicant admits to all the SOR allegations under Guideline F, except
subparagraphs 1.p and 1.q. She denies all of the allegations under Guidelines E and J. Applicant’s
admissions 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 (Applicant’s security clearance application) at 1; Tr. at 36, 48-49.3
GE 1, supra note 3, at 2; Tr. at 37-38.4
App Ex A (January 2007 performance evaluation) at 4; App Ex B (Letter, dated March 13, 2007); App Ex C5
(Letter, dated March 18, 2007).
GE 5 (Credit report, dated July 10, 2003); GE 6 (Credit report, dated December 10, 2004); and GE 7 (Credit6
report, dated August 24, 2006).
App Ex P (Payment receipt from creditor, dated January 24, 2007).7
App Ex E (Letter dated February 7, 2007, February 28, 2007, copy of payment check).8
App Ex M (Copy of account statement from creditor, dated January 24, 2007 and copy of bank statement9
showing payment).
3
Applicant, a 29-year-old woman employed as a claims processor and project leader for a
Department of Defense contractor, seeks a position of public trust. She has worked for her employer
for more than four years. She has a two-year-old daughter, for whom she provides support.3
Applicant graduated from high school in 1996. She attended college from 1996 through 2001,
graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2001. As a college student, she obtained credit cards,
which she used to purchase various items. She ignored paying the credit card bills, which are now
more than seven years old. She also experienced some medical problems while in school and incurred
bills, which she ignored and are many years delinquent. She based her attitude towards her paying her
bills at this time on immaturity.4
After college graduation, she worked one year as a resident counselor for a child and family
services organization. She left that position for her current job. Her co-workers describe her as
professional, courteous, trustworthy, and a person of integrity and commitment. In her most recent
evaluation, her employer rated her overall at meets expectations.5
A review of Applicant’s credit reports dated July 10, 2003, December 10, 2004, August 24,
2006, and the SOR shows 19 unpaid debts totaling $8,635. The current status of these debts is as
follows:6
SOR ¶ TYPE OF DEBT
(COLLECTION DATE)
AMOUNT CURRENT STATUS
1.a Medical bill (2000) $     65.00 Paid7
1.b Medical bill (2000) $   137.00 Unpaid
1.c Medical bill (2000) $     48.00 Unpaid
1.d Department store account
(2001)
$   732.00 Payment Plan. Fully paid
May 20078
1.e Medical bill (2001) $     52.00 Paid9
App Ex H (Memo from Applicant).10
App Ex L (Letter dated January 25, 2007 and copy of bank statement showing payment).11
App Ex D (Letter, dated March 1, 2007 and January 20, 2007, copy of payment check).12
App Ex J (Letters dated February 28, 2007 and March 6, 2007, copy of bank statement showing payment).13
App Ex N (Memo from Applicant)14
App Ex M (Copy of account statement from creditor, dated January 24, 2007 and copy of bank statement15
showing payment).
Id.16
App Ex I (Letters dated January 20, 2007 and March 1, 2007, copy of payment check).17
App Ex K (Memo from Applicant).18
App Ex G (Correspondence from creditor in 2006) at 4.19
App Ex O (memo from Applicant).20
Id.21
4
1.f Credit card (2001) $1,263.00 Unable to locate information
on account from creditor10
1.g Medical bill (2002) $   215.00 Paid11
1.h Retail store account (2002) $   573.00 Paid12
1.i Telephone bill (2002) $   249.00 Paid13
1.j Collection account (2002) $2,327.00 Negotiated settlement,
payment to be begin July
200714
1.k Medical bill (2002) $   192.00 Paid15
1.l Medical bill (2003) $   351.00 Paid16
1.m Department store (2003) $   392.00 Paid17
1.n Telephone bill (2003) $   340.00 Unpaid, to pay in next three
months18
1.o Medical bill (2003) $   215.00 Same as allegation 1.g
1.p Credit card (2003) $   160.76 Paid19
1.q Telephone bill (2004) $   634.00 Unpaid20
1.r Telephone bill (2004) $   297.00 Unpaid, to pay April 200721
App Ex F (Memo from Applicant); GE 5, supra note 6, shows this account as unpaid and has the account22
number listed in the memo. GE 7 and GE 6, supra note 6, at 2 indicate that at least one account referenced in this memo
is closed. The other account is no longer listed and presumed paid.
Tr. at 38-39, 73-74.23
GE 2 (Questionnaire for a Position of Public Trust, dated and signed on December 12, 2002) at 9; GE 324
(Applicant’s signed and sworn statement, dated November 5, 2003) at 1-5.
GE 2 (Interrogatories to Applicant and her answers, signed and sworn on October 6, 2006) at 6; Tr. at 40-42.25
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  26
5
1.s Store account (2006) $   392.00 Paid. Unable to locate
delinquent account with
creditor.22
Applicant and her daughter live with her mother. She pays her mother $230 a month in rent
and pays all the necessary living expenses for them. In addition to her usual living expense, about a
year ago, she started repaying her delinquent debts, one or two at a time. She receives no child support
from her daughter’s father. During the course of her relationship with her daughter’s father, Applicant
and he shared a cell phone service. The unpaid phone bill in allegation 1.q is that account. He refuses
to pay the debt or any part of it. Applicant is trying to negotiate some payment from him. She realizes
the importance of good credit and paying bills on time. She expressed a desire to be a good example
for her daughter on this issue.23
On December 12, 2002, Applicant completed her first questionnaire for a position of public
trust (SF-85P). She answered “yes” to question 22b and listed one credit card debt. Subsequent to
completing her application, she met with an investigator, who discussed her delinquent debts with
her. She signed a sworn statement on November 5, 2003. She acknowledged all but three of the debts
discussed and listed in her July 2003 credit report. She lacked financial resources at this time to repay
these debts, most of which she incurred as an irresponsible college student.24
Applicant completed a second SF-85P on November 8, 2004. She answered “no” to question
22b, which asked if she “was now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation?” She
did not list any debts discussed with the investigator in 2003, although she acknowledged talking with
the investigator about her debts at the hearing. When answering this question, she did not think about
past debts or retrieve a copy of her credit report and review it for old, unpaid debts. She considered
only her current bills, which were timely.25
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.”  In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding26
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
Directive, revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶2(a)(1)-(9).27
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 at 2 (App. Bd., July 11, 1997).28
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 at 3 (App. Bd., December 31, 1997); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.29
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 30
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd., August 10, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.31
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Decision and Reversal Order, January 27, 1995); Directive,32
Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.33
6
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) applicable to each specific guideline. An administrative judge need not view the
revised adjudicative guidelines as inflexible ironclad rules of law. Instead, acknowledging the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines, are intended to assist the administrative judge in
reaching fair and impartial common sense decisions. Although the presence or absence of a particular
condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the revised AG should be
followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. In addition, each
trustworthiness decision must be based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the
whole-person concept, and the factors listed in the Directive. Specifically, these are: (1) the nature,
extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (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
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.27
The sole purpose of a trustworthiness determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for a position of public trust.  The28
government has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than29
a preponderance of the evidence.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to the30
applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
her.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance31
decision.  Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national32
security will be resolved in favor of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness33
determinations 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.
7
It did not establish a prima facie case under Guideline E - Personal Conduct and Guideline J - Criminal
Conduct. 
Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, the “failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by
rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness
and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.” (AG ¶ 18.) The credit reports reflect several old,
unpaid debts, most of which applicant acknowledged. She incurred the majority of these debts when
she was a college student. Because of the age of these debts, their delinquent status, and her past
attitude towards debt payment, Applicant showed an inability or unwillingness to pay her debts. Based
on the evidence of record, the government established the applicability of DC ¶ 19 (a) inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts and DC ¶ 19 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant’s debt developed as a result of irresponsible financial behavior while a college
student. She has not presented any evidence which indicates that her delinquent debts were the result
of conditions beyond her control. MC ¶ 26 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected
medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances does not apply. 
Although Applicant never met with a financial counselor, she contacted most of the creditors
to whom she owed money and made arrangements to pay her debts. She has paid many of her smaller
debts in full. As her finances permit each month, she pays one or more of her remaining delinquent
debts. She made arrangements to pay two of her debts on a monthly basis with one being currently
paid, and the second debt repayment to begin in July 2007. She has acted in good faith to resolve her
unpaid debts. She otherwise lives within her financial means. MC ¶ 20 (c) the person has received or
is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control and MC ¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts apply. She is not required to be debt free; rather she must
manage her income and expenditures in a reasonable and prudent manner, which she is doing. She
provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the government’s concerns regarding her finances. Guideline
F is found in favor of Applicant.
Personal Conduct
Under Guideline E, conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide
truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with
the security clearance process. (AG ¶ 15) Under DC ¶ 16 (a), the government established that
Applicant omitted a material fact from her SF-85P when she answered “no” to question 22b. She
denies, however, that she deliberately falsified her answer to this question. When a falsification
allegation is controverted, the government has the burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing
alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred.
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313334
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
8
An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is
direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the
omission occurred.  For DC ¶ 16 (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and34
material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . to apply, the government must establish
that Applicant’s omission, concealment or falsification in her answer was deliberate.
Applicant credibly testified that she did not think about her old debts when completing the
2004 SF-85P application. Two years earlier, she admitted overdue debt when completing her SF-85P,
and reviewed all her past due debts with the investigator. She did not attempt to hide this information
at the time. In light of her admissions in 2002 and 2003, and the government’s knowledge of these
admitted debts, she had no realistic reason to conceal these debts when completing her more recent
SF-85P. I find that she did not intentionally falsify her answer to question 22b. Guideline E is found
in favor of Applicant.
Criminal Conduct
In light of my findings under Guideline E, the government cannot establish a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001 based on allegation 2.a. I find in favor of Applicant under Guideline J.
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 her acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
As a college student, Applicant obtained credit cards to purchase items she wanted, then
ignored paying the bills. She did the same with medical bills she incurred. She acted irresponsibly
about her debts. Since graduating from college six years ago, she has matured. She has worked for the
same company for over four years and is the sole provider for her young daughter. In the last year, she
started repaying her very old delinquent debt. Because she cannot repay all her debt in one lump sum,
she has chosen to repay one or two bills at a time. By this decision, she has systematically paid many
of her bills. She negotiated two payment plans for larger debts, one which she is paying and one to
begin payment shortly. She has assumed responsibility for her old debts, while remaining timely on
her current bills.
The creditors for the unpaid bills in allegations 1.b, 1.c, 1.f, and 1.j of the SOR are barred from
collecting these debts under the State in which she resides 3-year statute of limitations. See State Code.
See ISCR Case No. 04-07360 at 2 (App. Bd. Sept. 26, 2006) (stating partial credit was available under FCMC35
6 for debts being resolved through garnishment). 
9
Ann. § 15-3-530.  Thus, she receives partial credit for resolution of her debt. The State Court of35
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, 609 S.E.2d 548, 552 (Ct. App. 2005) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Elimination of these delinquent debts 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. To her credit, she has acted
responsibly by paying many old bills barred from collection under the statue of limitations. She has
also developed a payment plan for one very old bill. By so doing, she has demonstrated her ability to
act responsibly for her old debts. In recent years, she has not incurred excessive unpaid debt and has
curtailed her spending habits. 
Applicant performs her duties well and is respected by her co-workers for her work ethic and
integrity. I have weighed the mitigating factors, her change in attitude towards her finances, her
assumption of responsibility for her old debt and her failure to list her debts in her most recent
trustworthiness application. I find that the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that she is
a person of integrity, who is trustworthy. She would not act in a manner which would harm her
employer or the government. There is little likelihood she would violate these privacy rights because
of her existing debt problems. I conclude she has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns pertaining to
financial considerations. The personal conduct and criminal conduct concerns are not substantiated.
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:
SOR ¶ 1-Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-s:      For Applicant
SOR ¶ 2-Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a:      For Applicant
10
SOR ¶ 3-Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a:      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