KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 38 years old and has worked as a budget analyst for a defense contractor since
November 2006. She is raising two minor children from her first marriage. Shortly after marrying
her second husband, he had a stroke and a kidney transplant and is now on disability. She has
delinquent consumer and medical debts totaling approximately $48,000. Of that amount,
approximately $14,737 has either been paid off or deleted from her credit report. The amount of
Applicant's delinquent debt, although not negligible, should not make her vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or duress. Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is granted. 
CASENO: 06-19856.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE:  May 31, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-19856
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
This case was originally docketed with an ISCR case number. However, the hearing revealed that this was an1
ADP case. Accordingly, the case number was changed to reflect that this is an ADP case. Gov. Ex. 1 (Questionnaire for
Public Trust Positions (SF 85P), dated March 2, 2004).
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb.2
20, 1960), as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive).  The procedural rules set out
in the Directive for security clearance cases are applied to ADP trustworthiness determinations.  The adjudicative
guidelines set out in Department of Defense Regulation 5200-2R, Personnel Security Program (Jan. 1987), as amended
and modified (Regulation), are used to make ADP trustworthiness determinations. 
Applicant’s Answer, dated November 11, 2006.3
2
Applicant is 38 years old and has worked as a budget analyst for a defense contractor since
November 2006. She is raising two minor children from her first marriage. Shortly after marrying
her second husband, he had a stroke and a kidney transplant and is now on disability. She has
delinquent consumer and medical debts totaling approximately $48,000. Of that amount,
approximately $14,737 has either been paid off or deleted from her credit report. The amount of
Applicant’s delinquent debt, although not negligible, should not make her vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or duress. Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 2, 2004, Applicant applied for a determination of eligibility for assignment to
sensitive positions and completed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P).  On August1
29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued her a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) detailing the basis for its preliminary determination that she was not eligible for assignment
to an Information Systems Position designated ADP I/II/III.  The SOR alleges trustworthiness2
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
In a sworn, written statement, dated November 11, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR
allegations and requested a hearing.  The case was assigned to me on February 5, 2007. A Notice of3
Hearing was issued on February 12, 2007, scheduling the hearing for February 27, 2007. The hearing
took place as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted six exhibits, Exs. 1-6. Applicant submitted
14 exhibits (Exs. A-N). All exhibits were admitted without objection. The Transcript (Tr.) was
received on March 9, 2007. The record was left open until March 19, 2007, to allow Applicant the
opportunity to submit additional documents. By memorandum dated April 4, 2007, Department
Counsel stated that Applicant had not submitted any additional documents. The record was closed
on April 4, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted some of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations
under Guideline F and personal conduct, Guideline E. Those admissions are incorporated herein as
Tr. 16, 20.4
Tr. 20.5
Tr. 25.6
Tr. 21.7
Tr. 19-20.8
Tr. 17.9
Tr. 42.10
Tr. 19.11
Tr. 18.12
Tr. 133.13
Tr. 113.14
Tr. 113.15
3
findings of fact. She denied some of the other factual allegations under financial considerations.
After a thorough and careful review of the record, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 38 years old and has worked as a budget analyst  for a defense contractor since4
November 2006. She has worked for other employers doing budget analyst work since 2004.  5
Applicant first received a security clearance in 1991 while working for the federal government.6
Currently, she has a Secret level clearance.  She received an associate’s degree and is currently7
studying toward a bachelor’s degree in business administration, with a minor in accounting.  8
Applicant’s marriage from 1989 to 1993 ended in divorce.  She was left to raise two children9
from that marriage. The children are now aged 16 and 13 and they continue to reside with her. While
married, her husband did not help support the household or the children. She testified–
And the job that I had at the time, I mean I was barely getting by. Apartments and
things I had to rent out, then I had to end up leaving those and leaving to go back to
my mom’s house and I just didn’t have any help.10
When she divorced her husband, he did not pay child support.  Her ex-husband, the11
biological father of her children, died in January 2004.  She testified that she “was in a bad12
relationship years prior to my second marriage and I accrued a lot of his debt and he has since died
and I got struck with that.”  Each daughter receives approximately $650 per month in survivors'13
benefits, until the age of 18.  Applicant uses that money to assist her in paying household bills.14 15
Ex. 6 (United States Bankruptcy Court, Discharge of Debtor, dated October 4, 1996).16
Tr. 18.17
Tr. 18.18
Tr. 84.19
Tr. 43, 84.20
Tr. 43.21
Tr. 43.22
Tr. 16.23
Tr. 43.24
Tr. 84.25
Ex. 5 (Credit Report, dated February 27, 2007). Debts listed in subparagraphs 1.b-1.e, 1.h-1k, 1.s, 1.y-1.aa,26
and 1.ff no longer appear on the 2007 credit report. Debts in subparagraphs 1.i and 1.k for $165 and $166, respectively
are duplicates. The $50 debt for medical services in subparagraph 1.n says “paid.” The debt in subparagraph 1.r for $35
states that “customer disputes.” Subparagraph 1.aa, a $70 debt for medical services indicates that it has been paid.
Tr. 21, 106.27
Tr. 43, 89.28
4
Applicant petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 28, 1996. Her debts were discharged
on October 4, 1996.  The liabilities or assets related to the discharge are not part of the record.16
In 2004, Applicant remarried.  Her two stepchildren are aged 22 and 20, and live with their17
mother.  In 2004, shortly after her remarriage, her husband had a stroke.  In 2005, he had a kidney18 19
transplant.  He is now on disability.  Applicant stated she has been the sole provider for the family20 21
since her husband’s illnesses and his eventual disability, causing her to fall behind in paying all of
the household bills.  Their two-family paychecks became one. At one point, her youngest22
stepdaughter’s mother kicked her out of the house. She then moved in with Applicant and her
husband for about a year.  Applicant recounted that it was financially rough during this period23
because she had to “finish getting her [stepdaughter] through high school, two years ago. Graduation,
prom, I tried to send her over to college, got stuck with that bill. So it’s just been a lot going on.”24
In September 2006, Applicant lost her job.  She found another job in November 2006. While25
unemployed, her debts became delinquent. Applicant’s 32 delinquent debts total approximately
$48,039. Of that amount, approximately $14,737 has either been paid or deleted from the 2007 credit
report.  The unpaid delinquent debts now total approximately $33,263. Her salary is approximately26
$54,000 annually, which nets about $4,100 a month.  Her husband’s disability pay is $1,300 a27
month, and payments began in either “the latter part of ‘04, maybe ‘05 or so.”  His monthly28
Tr. 43.29
Tr. 86.30
Tr. 87.31
Tr. 87.32
Tr. 91.33
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.34
Regulation Appendix 8.35
Id.36
5
disability pay is substantially less than the monthly income he earned prior to his disabilities. Her
monthly mortgage is $1,800.29
Applicant responded “no” to Question 20 on the SF 85P, executed on March 2, 2004, which
asked the following question (Your Financial record 180 day delinquencies  Are you now over 180
days delinquent on any loan or financial obligations? (Include loans or obligations funded or
guaranteed by the Federal Government). Applicant failed to list those debts that were at least 180
days delinquent, as set forth in subparagraphs 1.b through 1.e, 1.h through 1.k, and 1.m through 1.o
of the SOR. Applicant contends that she misunderstood the question. She rushed through completing
the application, causing her to misread the question and answer incorrectly.
Applicant  worked for a company that assisted people with debt consolidation.  She did have30
them assist her with a debt for a major department store.  She stopped using the service because she31
contends that a mortgage lender told her that it she used such a company, it would not reflect well
on her credit.  Once her delinquent debts are satisfied, she would like to buy a house.32 33
POLICIES
To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Regulation. “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.”  Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets forth the personnel security34
guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under each guideline.
“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.”  Each eligibility35
determination must be a fair, impartial, and commonplace decision based on the relevant and
material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors listed in the Regulation.36
An administrative judge should consider: (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
Id.37
Regulation ¶ C8.2.1. 38
Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.39
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.40
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).41
Directive ¶ E2.2.2.42
6
voluntariness of the 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.37
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in DoD Directive
5220.6 before any final unfavorable determination may be made.  In trustworthiness determination38
cases, the Government initially must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible to occupy an ADP position.39
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  In security clearance cases, an applicant “has the ultimate burden of40
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  “Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with41
national interest will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  The same rules apply to42
trustworthiness determinations for access to sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, a trustworthiness concern exists for an individual who is financially
overextended. The person 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
unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding classified information.
Applicant has a history of financial problems. Her delinquent debts total approximately $48,039.
Thus, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not
meeting financial obligations) and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts)
apply.
Various conditions can mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties.
Applicant has been besieged by financial difficulties arising from both of her marriages. Her first
marriage resulted in no financial support from her spouse while he was living in their home, which
also included no child support payments when they divorced. Her dire financial situation became
intolerable and in 1996 she filed for bankruptcy. In the intervening years after the bankruptcy, she
was still trying to get her finances unraveled and paid timely. Shortly after her marriage in 2004, her
husband suffered a stroke and then had a kidney transplant. Their two-income household dissolved,
7
and she became the sole supporter for the family. More than a year later, he started to receive
monthly disability payments, which were substantially less than his monthly income prior to his
illnesses. Applicant has been working hard to keep the family financially afloat. Accordingly,
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) E2.A6.1.3.3 (the conditions that resulted
in the behavior 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 FC MC
E2.A6.1.3.6 (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) apply.
Personal Conduct
Personal conduct under Guideline E is always a trustworthiness concern because it asks the
central question of a person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly
safeguard sensitive information. Applicant did not deliberately falsify a material fact on her SF 85P.
I believe she was truthful and credible when she stated that she failed to disclose debts that were over
180 days delinquent because she misunderstood the question and was rushing through the
application. Thus, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission,
concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine
employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities) does not apply. 
I have considered all the evidence in this case. I have also considered the “whole person”
concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. At 38,
Applicant is a mature and earnest woman. She seems eager to resolve her financial problems. She
could certainly benefit from some financial counseling to ascertain the true extent of her finances.
No doubt she is scared of the financial strains caused by her husband’s stroke and kidney transplant.
She is trying to avoid another financial disaster, and is diligently trying to pay off her past and
current debt. She does not want to file for bankruptcy again. Under these circumstances, Applicant
has mitigated the Government’s case under the pertinent financial considerations and personal
conduct guidelines. Accordingly, I conclude that it is consistent with the national interest to grant
a favorable trustworthiness determination to Applicant.
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:
Paragraph one. Guideline F (Financial Considerations): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.aa: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.bb: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.cc: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.dd: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ee: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ff: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E (Personal Conduct): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to make a favorable trustworthiness determination for Applicant. Eligibility
is granted.
         Jacqueline T. Williams
        Administrative Judge