KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of financial problems, which includes more than $14,000 in
delinquent student loans. She did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial
considerations concern. Eligibility is denied. 
CASENO: 06-22514.h1
DATE: 04/17/2007
DATE: April 17, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-22514
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. LEONARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace L. Le’i, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of financial problems, which includes more than $14,000 in
delinquent student loans. She did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial
 See Memorandum from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security, dated1
November 19, 2004, Subject: Adjudication of Trustworthiness Cases  (directing DOHA to utilize Defense Department
Directive 5220.6 to resolve contractor cases forwarded to it for a trustworthiness determination, to include those cases
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
considerations concern. 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. This case involves an adjudication of Applicant’s
eligibility to occupy an ADP position, not an adjudication of Applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance. As a result of the review, the agency recommended 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 December 11, 2006.  The1
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 based on multiple delinquent
debts, to include student loans and unpaid judgments. 
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 December 11, 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 January 3, 2007. She elected to have her
case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
On January 31, 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 her February 12, 2007. Applicant’s reply
to the FORM is a two-page letter, dated March 5, 2007, with a one-page enclosure. It was reviewed
by department counsel who voiced no objections, and it is admitted into the record as Exhibit A. The
case was assigned to me April 3, 2007.   
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s response to the SOR is mixed. She denied or disagreed with the indebtedness
alleged in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.i, 1.k, 1.n, 1.o, and 1.p. She admitted or agreed with the
indebtedness alleged in the remaining subparagraphs. Her admissions are incorporated herein as
findings of fact, and I make the following findings of fact.
1. Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a company that provides services to the Defense
Department. She has worked in this job since 2005. Her job involves having access to unclassified
information. In conjunction with her employment, Applicant completed a questionnaire for public
trust positions (Standard Form 85P) in October 2005.
2. Applicant has a history of financial problems, as evidenced by derogatory information in
credit reports from 2006 and 2007. The public record section of the 2006 credit report revealed five
judgments against Applicant, one of which was satisfied. In addition, the report revealed a number
of collection and charged-off accounts. The 2007 credit report further revealed or confirmed
Applicant’s unfavorable financial history. It revealed the same five judgments, and it also listed a
number of collection and charged-off accounts. 
3. The SOR alleges that Applicant has 18 delinquent debts for more than $29,000. Based on the
evidence as a whole, I find by substantial evidence that the record evidence establishes all 18
delinquent debts. In particular, proof of Applicant’s delinquent debts is found in the 2006 and 2007
credit reports. Her delinquent indebtedness includes two student loans for more than $12,000.
4. In her reply to the FORM, Applicant provided written responses about her indebtedness. She
made a brief statement for each debt that further admitted or denied the debt. Except for her student
loans, she did not provide 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 her delinquent student loans, Applicant has been in a loan-rehabilitation program
making payments for the last ten months. She stated that after her March 2007 payment, the loans
will be considered current. A copy of a debt-collection bill from the U.S. Education Department,
with a due date of March 8, 2007, reflects that Applicant is making monthly payments on two
student loans with a current total balance of $14,878.
6. As evidence of her trustworthiness, Applicant pointed out that she held a security clearance
when she worked for the U.S. Navy in 1994, and she has worked for other companies where she has
had access to sensitive information. She never mishandled such information, and she asserts she
would not do so despite her financial situation. 
CONCLUSIONS
4
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. She has delinquent consumer debts, unpaid
judgments, and delinquent student loans. Viewing the record evidence as a whole, the following
disqualifying conditions (DC) under Guideline F apply: (1) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,
and (2) a history of not meeting financial obligations. To sum up, the record evidence shows a
pattern of financial problems.  
I reviewed the mitigating conditions under the guideline and conclude none apply. She has
not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial considerations concern. In particular, the
record evidence is insufficient to establish that she has made a good-faith effort to pay or otherwise
resolve her indebtedness. Although she has made progress with her student loans, the loans are not
yet current through the loan-rehabilitation program. In addition, I reach this conclusion because
Applicant has not (except for the student loans) documented the actions, if any, she has taken to
address her financial problems. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to reach a favorable
decision. 
At this point, Applicant’s history of financial problems—which includes delinquent student
loans—militates against granting her eligibility for an ADP position. Accordingly, I conclude that
Applicant failed to establish it is in the interests of national security to grant her 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–r : Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the facts and circumstances, 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
5
Administrative Judge