KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant incurred significant delinquent following her husband’s loss of his well-
paying job in January 2003. They sold their home to reduce monthly expenses and he has
returned to work. They are slowly repaying their delinquent debts. She has mitigated the
government’s concerns about her finances under Guideline F. Eligibility is granted.
CASENO: 05-09313.h1
DATE: 05/07/2007
DATE:  May 7, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: ---------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 05-09313
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.
Tr. at 11.2
Applicant’ Response to the SOR, dated November 30, 2006.3
2
Applicant incurred significant delinquent following her husband’s loss of his well-paying job
in January 2003. They sold their home to reduce monthly expenses and he has returned to work.
They are slowly repaying their delinquent debts. She has mitigated the government’s concerns about
her finances under Guideline F. Eligibility 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 17, 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 trustworthiness concerns 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 November 30, 2006, Applicant
submitted a notarized response to the allegations. She requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned this case to me on March 7, 2007 and issued a notice of hearing on March
16, 2007, which the Applicant received on March 20, 2007. I conducted a hearing on April 11, 2007.2
The government submitted eight exhibits (GE), which were marked and admitted into the record as
GE 1-8 without objection. Applicant submitted 18 exhibits (App Ex), which were marked and
admitted as App Ex A-R without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf. I held the record
open for the submission of additional documentation by Applicant. Applicant timely submitted 9
additional documents, which were marked and admitted as App Ex S-AA without objection. DOHA
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on April 24, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In her SOR response, Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations under Guideline F, except
allegation 1.d, which she denied.  Applicant’s admissions are incorporated herein. In addition, after3
a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings
of fact.
GE 1 (Applicant’s Questionnaire for Public Trust Position, dated August 19, 2004) at 1, 3, 5; Tr. at 18-19.4
Id.5
Tr. at 19, 23, 27-28.6
Id. at 20-21, 48-51.7
Id. at 21-23, 27-28; App Ex F (Husband’s Social Security Benefits Statement, dated August 2, 2006) at 3; App8
Ex G (Applicant’s Social Security Benefits Statement, dated September 15, 2006) at 3.
App Ex U (Applicant and husband’s Joint Federal Income Tax return for 2002); App Ex V (Applicant’s9
husband’s Federal Income Tax return for 2003); App Ex W (Applicant’s Federal Income Tax return for 2003); App Ex
X (Applicant and husband’s Joint Federal Income Tax return for 2004); App Ex Y (Applicant and husband’s Joint
Federal Income Tax return for 2005); App Ex Z (Applicant and husband’s Joint Federal Income Tax return for 2006).
3
Applicant, a 35-year-old woman employed as a customer service associate for a Department
of Defense contractor, seeks a position of public trust. She began working for her employer in
December 1997.4
Applicant and her husband married 15 years ago. They have two children, a 10-year-old son
and a 3-year-old daughter. For the last 10 years, she has worked steadily.5
In 2002, Applicant’s husband received a promotion to general manager at his company. His
salary increased to approximately $60,000 a year plus bonuses. In March 2002, they purchased their
dream home for approximately $170,000. In the fall of 2002, Applicant miscarried twins after
significant medical treatment. She missed time from work while receiving medical care. Her employer
paid her about 60 % of her salary during her absence. In December 2002, she and her husband
purchased a new truck for $26,000, with a monthly payment of $600.6
On January 2, 2003, Applicant’s husband reported to work, intending to sign his yearly
employment contract. Instead, his company informed him that his job had been eliminated under its
restructuring plan to save costs. He received no termination compensation or performance
recommendations. Because his employer provided only dates of employment, he encountered
significant difficulties in obtaining a new job. He collected unemployment for six months. Applicant
and her husband used their income from her job and his unemployment benefits to pay their mortgage,
utilities and food. They stopped paying their other bills, including the car payment, because they did
not have sufficient money. They incurred significant delinquent debt as a result.7
Applicant’s husband obtained a position selling insurance in late 2003. He earned $6,000 in
2003 about 1/10 of his former salary. By early 2004, their the new truck has been repossessed and
their home sold. They received enough money from the sale of their home to pay the mortgage debt
in full. Applicant’s husband secured a better paying job in 2004. In January 2007, he procured another
position, which he anticipates will pay him between $35,000 and $40,000.8
Applicant’s income tax returns for 2002 show a joint income of $72,000. The tax returns for
she and her husband for 2003 indicate an income of $28,134 for her and $14,360 for him for a total
income of $42,494, a decline of almost $30,000 from the previous year. Their tax returns for 2004,
2005 and 2006 reflect a joint income of $46,244, $60,394 and $65,175 respectively.9
App Ex S (Husband’s Earnings statements from January 2007 through March 2007); App Ex T (Applicant’s10
Earnings statements from January 2007 through mid-April 2007); Tr. at 39. Because Applicant works at home, her
employer reimburses her $50 a month towards her internet costs. Id.
GE 2 (Applicant’s signed statement, dated December 7, 2004); App Ex A (Bill showing debt paid); App Ex11
E (Letter from landlord, dated March 22, 2007); Tr. at 38-41.
GE 8 (Credit Report, dated March 8, 2007); App Ex AA (Payment plan and bank statement showing payment);12
Tr. at 25.
App Ex D (Letter, dated February 8, 2006); App Ex J-P (Performance Evaluations for the years 1998 through13
2004); App Ex Q and R (Performance evaluations for the years 2005 and 2006); App Ex H (Performance awards in
2006); App Ex T, supra note 10, at 6.
4
Applicant’s gross monthly income totals approximately $2,532, including overtime. Her
husband’s gross monthly income is $1,200 plus commissions. Her net monthly income totals
approximately $1,732, including overtime, and her husband’s net income at his new job various
depending upon commissions earned. For the first three months of 2007, his net monthly income
averaged $1,362 without any withholding for income taxes. Thus, their net monthly household
income is approximately $3,100 plus $50 a month internet reimbursements costs from her employer.10
Currently, Applicant and her husband rent a house for $750 a month. They timely pay their
rent each month. Their other monthly living expenses include $300 for food, $300 for utilities, $305
for a car payment, $200 a month for gasoline, $75 for car insurance, $210 for debt payments, $100
for clothing, and $120 for miscellaneous expenses. Her minimum monthly expenses total $2,360,
leaving approximately $800 a month of income available for debt payment. She did not include child
care expenses for her daughter.11
Applicant’s unpaid debt as listed in the SOR totals $18,119. Most of her unpaid debt relates
to the truck repossession in 2004. The debts listed in allegations 1.d ($2,054) and 1.e ($2,096) are the
same. She negotiated a settlement of this debt and began making payments, which will conclude in
September 2007. The $145 medical bill in allegation 1.a has been paid. Two other small debts listed
in the SOR (allegations 1.b and 1.f), an unidentified medical bill and a cable bill, totaling less than
$500 remain unpaid. The debt listed in allegation 1.c belongs to her husband alone, and is no longer
listed with an overdue balance on her credit report. Applicant and her husband have slowly paid the
debts incurred subsequent to his lay off, as reflected in her credit reports. They decided against filing
bankruptcy as a way to resolve their debt issues.12
Applicant’s employer rated her performance at a high meets expectations or exceeds
expectations from 1998 through 2004. Her more recent evaluations are lower. The commentary
criticizes her unscheduled leave use, which was 30 hours last year. Despite her most recent rating, in
the last year she received seven certificates of excellence for her work performance, plus a $1,000
incentive award in early 2007. Her former supervisor describes her as a person of integrity, who is
committed to her job and is responsible.13
POLICIES
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  14
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.15
 Id.16
 Id.17
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.18
5
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, Safeguarding14
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: 
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 administrative15
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 following factors: (1) the16
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.   17
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.18
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.19
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).20
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.21
6
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent19
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether20
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 determinations for access to21
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.
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 old,
delinquent debts, which were incurred subsequent to her husband’s job loss in January 2003. Because
of this income loss and the delinquent status of her debts, Applicant lacked the ability to pay her debts.
Based on the evidence of record, the government established the applicability of disqualifying
conditions (DC) ¶ 19 (a) inability . . . to satisfy debts and DC ¶ 19 (c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations.
Before January 2003, Applicant and her husband paid their bills. Their income level enabled
them to purchase a new home and a new truck in 2002. Her husband lost his job in January 2003,
which created a severe financial hardship for them. Their overall income for 2003 decreased by
$30,000 making it very difficult for them to pay their bills. Although he eventually secured a job, they
continued to encounter severe financial difficulties because he initially earned about 90% less than his
job as a general manager. Mitigating conditions (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. 
Applicant has not met with a financial counselor, but as her husband began to work and obtain
better paying positions, they began to slowly pay their debts or reduce their debt burdens. They sold
their dream home before it went to foreclosure. She contacted some creditors to arrange payment of
her debts, one at a time. She currently has a payment plan for the second largest debt listed in her SOR.
MC ¶ 20 (c) . . . there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control and
The remaining financial considerations mitigating condition set forth in AG 20 (f) does not apply in this case.22
7
MC ¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts apply. While she is not required to be debt free, she must manage her income and expenditures
in a reasonable and prudent manner. Applicant and her husband are doing so.
Applicant denied owing the debt alleged in paragraph 1.d. of the SOR. This debt is the same
as the debt identified in allegation 1.e of the SOR. Therefore, 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 has some applicability.22
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.
She and her husband worked hard, and as a result, steadily increased their income. Because of
their good income, they bought their dream home and months later a new truck, all of which they could
afford at the time of purchase. At the same time, they timely paid their bills. When her husband lost
his well-paying job, they made decisions about which bills could be paid with their significantly
reduced income. They properly decided to reduce their living expenses by selling their dream home
and moving to lower cost rental housing. They tried, but could not continue the car payments on the
new truck. In the last three years, her husband’s income has slowly increased, in part by his willingness
to move to better paying jobs as the opportunities arose, but is still well below his salary in 2002.
During this same period of time, they undertook to repay their debts, one at a time. Her most recent
credit report reflects the improvement, but not elimination, of her debt problems. She declined to use
bankruptcy as a means to eliminate her debt. She did not rely on any illegal means to resolve her debt.
She chose instead to pay her debt a bit at a time, including debts not listed in the SOR.
For more than 9 years, Applicant has been a reliable and well-performing employee. In the last
year, she received seven certificates of excellence for her work performance. I have weighed the
mitigating conditions, Applicant’s attitude towards debt payment, her assumption of responsibility for
her debts, and her overall character against the remaining unpaid debts. 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 the privacy rights she has agreed to protect because of her existing debt problems,
particularly since she did not violate these rights when her finances were at their worst. I conclude she
has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns pertaining to financial considerations. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
8
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