KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant’s former boyfriend, a con-man, stole her identity by obtaining credit cards in
her name. He charged thousands of dollars on these accounts. She successfully challenged the
legitimacy of several debts and paid the remaining debts. She has mitigated the government’s
concerns  under Guideline F about her trustworthiness. Eligibility for a public trust position is
granted.
CASENO: 06-23010.h1
DATE: 04/24/2007
DATE:  April 24, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-23010
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY E. HENRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
 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.
2
Applicant’s former boyfriend, a con-man, stole her identity by obtaining credit cards in her
name. He charged thousands of dollars on these accounts. She successfully challenged the legitimacy
of several debts and paid the remaining debts. She has mitigated the government’s concerns  under
Guideline F about her trustworthiness. Eligibility for a public trust position is granted.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On August 19, 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 3, 2006,1
DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing why DOHA could not make
the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue eligibility for a public trust position. Specifically, the SOR, which is in
essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns arising 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. DOHA recommended the
case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether eligibility for a position of trust
should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. On December 27, 2006, Applicant submitted a
notarized response to the allegations. She requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned this case to me on February 9, 2007, and issued a notice of hearing on March
2, 2007. The March 21, 2007 hearing proceeded as scheduled after Applicant waived her right to 15
days notice of the hearing date. The government submitted four exhibits (GE), which were marked
and admitted into the record as GE 1-4 without objection. Applicant submitted 23 exhibits (App Ex),
which were marked and admitted into the record as App Ex A-J and L-X 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 admitted to SOR allegations 1.c, 1.e, and 1.g under
Guideline F, but denied the remaining allegations. 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.
Applicant, a 48-year-old woman seeking a position of public trust, works as a claims analyst
for a Department of Defense contractor. She has worked for her employer for more than 7 years. She
GE 1 (Application for a position of trust, dated August 19, 2004) at 2; Tr. at 43-35, 54, 56.2
Tr. at 53, 56-59.3
GE 2 (Credit report, dated November 30, 2005); GE 3 (Credit report, dated October 5, 2006); and GE 4 (Credit4
report, dated February 7, 2007).
App Ex S (Letter, dated January 3, 2007); Tr. at 5
App Ex U (Letter, dated December 12, 2006) at 4; Tr at6
App Ex T (documents showing settlement offer and payment in December 2006); Tr. at .7
3
is a high school graduate and attended college for three and one-half years, but did not graduate. She
is single and lives alone.2
Applicant’s annual salary is $25,000 a year, giving her a gross monthly income of just over
$2,000. Her net monthly pay is approximately $1,200. Her monthly expenses include $120 for
electricity and water, $74 for cable and internet service, $44 for telephone, $140 for gasoline, $165
for insurance, and $400 for food. She has neither a mortgage on her home nor a car payment for her
two cars. She has one credit card on which her payments are current.3
A review of Applicant’s credit reports dated November 30, 2005, October 5, 2006, February
7, 2007, and the SOR shows 7 unpaid debts totaling $58,413. The current status of these debts is as
follows:4
SOR ¶ TYPE OF DEBT AMOUNT CURRENT STATUS
1.a Credit card $  5,737.00 Disputed, removed credit
report
1.b Credit card $10,965.00 Disputed, removed credit
report
1.c Credit card $11,107.77 Paid5
1.d Credit card $23,890.35 Disputed, removed credit
report
1.e Credit card $  1,506.00 Paid6
1.f Credit card $  4,732.00 Disputed, being investigated
1.g Credit card $     476.00 Paid7
About eight years ago, Applicant became romantically involved with a man. After some
months of dating, he moved into her home. About a year after he started living with her, she realized
he had been using her credit information to obtain additional credit cards in her name. He charged
high debt on these cards and did not pay the debt. He stole her identity while living with her. Despite
no active assistance from the local police and her fear of harm from this man, she finally forced him
Tr. at 47-52. A physician who had been treating this man told her he was a multiple personality. She observed8
changes in his personality that indicate this man was indeed a multiple personality, with some personalities showing
criminal aggressiveness. Tr. at 50-51.
Tr. at 43-44, 54-56.9
App Ex D, G and L (Undated letters to credit bureaus); App Ex R (Proof of mailing and receipt of letters by10
credit bureaus); App Ex H (Confirmation of dispute); App Ex C (Results of investigation, dated January 12, 2007); App
Ex J (Results of investigation, dated January 11, 2007).
App Ex V (Performance review dated, January 25, 2007); App Ex W (Performance review, dated January 6,11
2006); App Ex X (Performance review, dated February 14, 2005); App Ex M-Q (Character reference letters).
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  12
4
to move out of her home in 2002. She no longer has any contact with him. At the hearing, she
demonstrated a fearfulness of him, even though he no longer has any involvement in her life.8
Applicant’s parents died in 2006, leaving her and her sister a farm, which is worth several
million dollars. They also left cash and other liquid assets to their daughters. Applicant used some
of her inheritance to pay the debts she acknowledged and to pay the remaining mortgage on her
house.9
After receiving the SOR in November 2006, Applicant wrote to the three major credit
bureaus, challenging the debts listed in allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.d and 1.f. As a result, the credit bureaus
investigated these accounts and deleted all challenged accounts except allegation 1.f, which is still
being investigated.10
Applicant’s performance reviews for the last three years reflect that in 2005, she received a
rating of 4.1, and in 2006, a rating of 4.5 because her work “sometimes exceeds expectations”. In
2007, she received a rating of 4.6 because she “consistently exceeds expectations”. Applicant’s
friends and co-workers describe her as a valuable team member, conscientious, honest, trustworthy,
innovative, and loyal.11
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, Safeguarding12
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth
personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under
each guideline. The adjudicative guidelines at issue in this case are: 
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.13
 Id.14
 Id.15
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.16
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.17
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).18
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.19
5
Guideline F - Financial Considerations - 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, or careless in their obligation
to protect classified or sensitive information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly
in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other
aspects of life.
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth
and discussed in the conclusions below.
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.  An administrative13
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available,
reliable information about the person.  An administrative judge should consider the following14
factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the
conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (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 pertinent 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.   15
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR
that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified
information.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,16
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is17
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance."  Any doubt18
as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be
resolved in favor of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations19
for access to sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
The remaining financial considerations mitigating conditions set forth in AG 20 (a) and AG 20 (b) do not20
apply in this case.
6
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.
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,
large, unpaid debts. Because of the age of these debts and their delinquent status, 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 developed a trusting relationship with a man who kept his true motives for their
relationship a secret. Being a con man, he used her trust to steal her identify and create credit issues
for her. 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 applies.
Although Applicant never met with a financial counselor, she contacted the creditors to whom
she owed money and made arrangements to pay her debts in full. She used her inheritance to pay the
remaining balance on her mortgage and to pay her just debts. 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 denied owing the debts alleged in paragraphs 1.a, 1.b,1.d, and 1.f of the SOR, stating that
these debts were created by her former boyfriend, whom she fears, when he used her name to obtain
credit, then charged numerous purchases on the credit cards he obtained. Upon receipt of the SOR,
she successfully challenged the validity of three debts, which have been removed from her credit
history. The fourth debt is still being investigated by the creditor reporting agency. MC ¶ 20 (e) the
individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause
of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue applies.  Applicant paid her old debts with money she20
received from her inheritance. Thus, MC ¶ 20(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source applies.
Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concern. Guideline F is found
in favor of Applicant.
Whole Person Analysis
See ISCR Case No. 04-06242 at 2 (App. Bd. June 28, 2006).21
7
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.
Applicant performs her duties exceedingly well and is highly respected by her co-workers for
her work ethic and integrity. Until she became involved with the con man a few years ago, she could
pay the debts she incurred. This relationship created serious financial problems for her, which have
now been resolved. She recently received a significant inheritance, but has not changed her life style.
She continues to live as she did in the past, modestly. Her bills are paid in a timely fashion. There is
very little likelihood that she will engage in illegal acts to generate funds, as she is financially solvent.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and all the facts and circumstances, in
the context of the whole person,  I conclude she has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns21
pertaining to her finances. 
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-g: 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