KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is 41 years old and has worked as a health care finder for a medical contractor
with the federal government. She and her husband had delinquent debts discharged in bankruptcy
in 1996. They continue to have financial problems and have over $65,000 in unresolved delinquent
debts. She has paid one debt, but the largest remain. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial
considerations concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility is denied
CASENO: 06-20754.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE: April 30, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-20754
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CAROL G. RICCIARDELLO
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Braden Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 41 years old and has worked as a health care finder for a medical contractor with
the federal government. She and her husband had delinquent debts discharged in bankruptcy in 1996.
They continue to have financial problems and have over $65,000 in unresolved delinquent debts. She
2
has paid one debt, but the largest remain. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations
concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility is denied.
Tr. 75-77.1
Tr. Tr. 77-79.2
Tr. 70-71.3
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue an ADP
I/II/III position for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan.
2, 1992), as amended (Directive), DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on December 29,
2006. It detailed the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial
considerations) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and
implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. Applicant’s answer to the
SOR was in writing but undated. She elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The
case was assigned to me on February 16, 2007. With the consent of the parties, I convened a hearing
on March 21, 2007, to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security
to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an ADP I/II/III position. Department Counsel
offered five exhibits that were marked as GE 1-5, and admitted without objections. Applicant offered
nine exhibits that were marked as AE A-L and admitted without objections. DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on March 30, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is 41 years old and has worked as a health-care finder for a federal contractor since
August 2005. She is a high school graduate and has attended some college courses. She is married
and has a 17 year old daughter who graduated from high school in February 2007. Her daughter lives
at home and does not work. Applicant’s husband receives social security benefits and is presently
working as a security guard. Applicant’s daughter also receives social security benefits.
Applicant and her family lived in State A from 1985 to 1999. She was employed in State A
and her husband was not. Her husband decided he wanted to move to State B, so they did. Neither
had secured employment in State B when they moved.  They moved to City Y where Applicant’s1
husband was a property manager of an apartment for two months. They did not like City Y, so they
moved to City X. Neither had secured employment in City X before they moved.  Applicant did not2
work from September 1999 until April 2000. It is unclear when Applicant’s husband secured
employment, but he was not working when she quit her job in December 2003. Applicant originally
testified that she lost her job, but when questioned further she admitted she actually quit. She did not
work again until August 2005, when she was hired by her present employer.  During this time she3
Tr. 46-48.4
Tr. 26.5
Tr. 28-31.6
Tr. 28-31.7
Tr. 31-32.8
Answer.9
Tr. 33-34.10
Tr. 35-36.11
4
took a course at a local college that her husband paid for with his social security benefits. She stated
was looking for employment, but could not find a job.  4
Applicant and her husband filed for bankruptcy in 1996. Approximately $60,000 in debt was
discharged. The reason for the bankruptcy was a failed trucking business. Applicant stated she was
a silent partner in the business.5
SOR 1.b is a judgment from State A entered against Applicant in 1996 for unpaid taxes in
the amount of $1,006.52. Applicant stated she believed she paid all of her taxes before leaving State
A and did not know what this judgment was for. She stated her accountant should have taken care
of this matter.  She stated she contacted State A and the matter should have been taken care of.  She6 7
did not provide any supporting documents to show she paid the taxes and the judgment has been
cleared. 
SOR 1.c is the deficiency owed on a truck Applicant and her husband owned and was
repossessed. They could not make payments on the vehicle when her husband lost her job. She has
not contacted the creditor or made any payments on the debt.8
SOR 1.d is an account in collection status. Applicant stated she has made payments on this
debt and negotiated a settlement in January 2006.  She provided AE A, which is an account9
statement from August 2005. She also provided copies of unsigned checks to reflect payments she
made by phone. The balance reflected on AE A is $512.98 and shows it is still in a delinquent status.
It is less than the original delinquent amount, but no substantive documentation was provided to
reflect a current balance and payments.10
SOR 1.e is a debt for a repossessed mobile home. Applicant and her husband purchased the
home in 2001. They could not afford the payments when Applicant’s husband lost his job and she
quit her job in December 2003. She could not recall when her husband lost his job. They have not
paid any of this debt or contacted the creditor to resolve it.11
Answer.12
TR. 57. 13
Tr. 102.14
Tr.102-104.15
Tr. 84.16
AE F.17
AE F, G, H, and I.18
Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.19
5
SOR 1.f is a debt on an account with a bank for nonsufficient funds. An automatic
withdrawal was processed on the account and Applicant did not have sufficient funds to cover the
amount. Applicant settled this account with the bank on December 11, 2006.12
Applicant is currently making the payments on a truck she financed. She provided documents
to show she is paying other bills, including one for elective laser eye surgery. She believes the cost
was approximately $600 per eye. 
In the past Applicant was responsible for paying the family expenses, but in 2003 her
husband took over the responsibilities.  However, they do not pool their money to pay joint bills.13
She pays certain monthly expenses and he pays others. He does not contribute payments toward their
delinquent debts.  He is responsible for his money and they have not discussed how they will pay14
for joint bills. She agreed they will need to do that in the future.  Applicant has not had credit15
counseling because she stated she believed it was only available when the delinquent debts are credit
card bills, which she does not have.16
Applicant provided a reference letter from her landlord to reflect that she has lived at his
apartment complex since September 2005 and has never been late in paying her rent.  Coworkers17
believe her to be an excellent employee with a positive approach and ability to adapt to change. She
is considered professional with an outstanding work ethic. She adheres to company policy and is
considered reliable, truthful, and a hard worker. She is considered an invaluable resource.18
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines are used to make ADP trustworthiness determinations.
Department of Defense contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in the
Directive before any final unfavorable access determination may be made.19
Regulation ¶ C2.1.2.20
Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.21
Regulation ¶ C3.1.2.2.22
Regulation ¶C6.1.1.1.23
Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.24
Regulation Appendix 8 at 132.25
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 11, 1997).26
6
An individual may not be assigned to perform sensitive duties unless a competent security
authority determines it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to do so.  Positions20
designated as ADP I or ADP II are classified as sensitive positions.  ADP III positions are21
“nonsensitive positions.”  However, DOHA has been directed to apply the due process provisions22
of the Directive for all trustworthiness determinations under ADP I, II, and including ADP III
positions by a memorandum from the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and
Security) dated November 19, 2004. Thus, even though ADP III positions are nonsensitive, they are
treated in the same way and adjudicated under the same guidelines and procedures as ADP I and II
cases. 
“The standard that must be met for …assignment to sensitive duties 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.”  Appendix23
8 of the Regulation sets forth adjudicative policy, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. Department of Defense contractor personnel are
afforded the adjudicative procedures contained in the Directive.24
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”  Each eligibility25
determination  must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the relevant and material
facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the factors listed in the Regulation.
Specifically these are: the nature, extend, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the
conduct; the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of
participation; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the
motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition
or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should
be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  The government26
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 31, 1997); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.27
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).28
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.29
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.30
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.31
Id.32
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.33
Executive Order 10865 § 7.34
7
has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than a27
preponderance of evidence.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an28
applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance29
decision.  These same burdens of proof apply to trustworthiness determinations for ADP positions.30
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard indicates that31
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable32
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
in favor of protecting such sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security33
clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an34
indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guideline is set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below. 
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Based upon consideration of all the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guideline most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Financial Considerations are a security concern because 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.
Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence
8
that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate
proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts. 
Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19 (a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC 19 (c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations), apply in this case. Applicant has over $65,000 in delinquent debts that remain unpaid.
She has not contacted the creditors that hold her largest debts and although she stated she is
attempting to pay others, she failed to provide documents to support her payments. She has paid one
delinquent debt. 
I have considered all the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC), and
especially considered FC MC 20 (a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), FC MC 20 (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), FC MC 20 (c) (the person received
or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control), FC MC 20 (d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
Applicant and her husband had their debts discharged in bankruptcy in 1996. Applicant has
a tax judgment that remains unresolved. She has two large debts, both for repossessions, that she has
not contacted the creditors to resolve. She provided no indication of how she planned on resolving
the debts. I find FC MC 20 (a) does not apply. Applicant and her husband have had periods of
unemployment, but they have also made financially risky decisions that were within their control.
Applicant was employed when they chose to move without either of them having secured
employment. They moved to City Y and then moved again without having employment in City X.
Applicant quit her job when her husband was unemployed and remained unemployed for an extended
period of time. These conditions were within Applicant’s control. I find FC MC 20 (b) does not apply.
Applicant has not taken action on her large debts. She has paid one debt. There is no evidence that
she has received financial counseling to resolve her debts. The documents Applicant did provide do
not substantiate that she is paying one of her smaller debts. I find neither FC MC 20 (c) or (d) apply.
The Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. 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 merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I considered all the evidence provided and also considered the “whole person” concept in
evaluating Applicant’s trustworthiness. I considered Applicant’s age and her work performance. I also
considered that Applicant did not provide any evidence that she has made a payment or contacted the
9
creditors to resolve her largest delinquent debts. Although she paid one debt, the others remain either
unpaid or insufficient proof was provided to show progress in paying. Applicant had a job and quit
it when she could not afford to do so. Because of her actions she was unemployed for a long period.
She and her husband have also had their debts discharged in bankruptcy in 1996 and find themselves
in financial trouble again. I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns
raised by the financial considerations under Guideline F. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For 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/III position. Eligibility
is denied.
Carol G. Ricciardello
Administrative Judge