KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has been experiencing financial problems for many years. Determination of
Trustworthiness is denied.
CASENO: 06-00375.h1
DATE: 05/23/2007
DATE: May 23, 2007
In Re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-00375
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOSEPH TESTAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Braden M. Murphy, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has been experiencing financial problems for many years. Determination of
Trustworthiness is denied.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care System Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASDC3I), entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement which gave DOHA the responsibility to provide trustworthiness determinations for
contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation
5200.2R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987.
On August 31, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which
detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness,
suitability, and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position (ADP-
I/II/III).
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 2, 2006, and elected to have his case
determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel (DC) submitted the
Government's written case (FORM) on or about February 14, 2007. Applicant filed a response to the
FORM on or about April 5, 2007. The case was assigned to me on April 25, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 45 years of age.
SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in December 1996. The
petition listed $94,895.07 in assets and $71,272.51 in liabilities. Applicant received a Discharge from
the bankruptcy court in April 1998.
SOR Allegations 1b and 1c: Applicant is indebted to Capital One Bank for two credit card
accounts in the total amount of $6,256.00. The accounts were charged off in September 2001.
SOR Allegation 1d: Applicant is indebted to Verizon in the approximate amount of
$1,363.00. The debt was charged off in 2002. 
SOR Allegation 1e: Applicant is indebted to Pinnacle in the approximate amount of
$4,601.00. The debt was placed for collection in 2005.
In response to interrogatories sent to him in early 2006, applicant stated, with respect to each
of the debts discussed above, that he had enrolled with Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS)
to work out a debt payment plan, and that his first meeting with CCCS was scheduled for April 11,
2006 (Exhibit 8).
In response to a second set of interrogatories sent to him a few months later, applicant stated,
with respect to each of the debts discussed above, that he had a meeting with CCCS, and due to
“information provided and the aging of these accounts,” he was advised not to start a debt payment
3
plan. He further stated that he was seeking the services of an attorney to settle these accounts. A
November 21, 2006 letter from an attorney indicates that applicant retained legal counsel to negotiate
a resolution of his debts (Exhibit 13).
In his response to the SOR, applicant stated that the four aforementioned delinquent debts
were the direct result of his loss of employment in 2001 and a divorce. In the FORM, DC noted that
applicant did not indicate any break in employment since 1994 on his Public Trust Position
Application (PTPA) (Exhibit 5). In his response to the FORM, applicant responded to DC’s
argument by stating he lost his full time employment in November 2001, and did not obtain another
full time job until August 2002.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence establishes that within a few years of receiving his Discharge from the
bankruptcy court, applicant began experiencing additional financial problems. His failure to honor
numerous financial obligations since receiving that Discharge in 1998 requires application of
Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and
E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts).
Applicant stated that his post-bankruptcy financial difficulties were caused by a loss of
employment and a divorce.  Although his loss of employment in November 2001 and his divorce in
April 2002 may have contributed to his current financial problems, these financial problems began
prior to these two events, as evidenced by the fact his Capital One Bank debts were charged off in
September 2001. Accordingly, Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.3 (the conditions that resulted in the
behavior were largely beyond the person’s control e.g., loss of employment . . . divorce) does not
apply.
Applicant met with CCCS about a year ago to discuss his debts. According to applicant, he
was advised not to set up a payment plan because the debts were too old. Although applicant has
every right to accept this advice and not honor his financial obligations, his acceptance of this advice
does not reflect well on his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. On or before November 21,
2006, he retained an attorney to help him negotiate settlements with his creditors. Although this
appears to be a step in the right direction, this effort cannot be given much weight in light of the fact
there is no credible evidence that the attorney has contacted, let alone negotiated settlements with,
applicant’s creditors during the past four and one-half months. Based on the foregoing, applicant
does not qualify for Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.4 (the person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control) or Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.6 (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
Given applicant’s long history of financial problems, and his inability or unwillingness to
take any meaningful action to address the four past-due debts alleged in the SOR, I have no choice
but to conclude it is not clearly consistent with the national interest for applicant to have access to
sensitive medical information.
4
FORMAL FINDINGS
PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability and
eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position.
Joseph Testan
Administrative Judge