KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is 28 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor.  He has $32,674
in delinquent debts for which he has not established any repayment plan.  He has not mitigated the
financial considerations trustworthiness concern.  Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
CASENO: 06-23444.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007
DATE:  July 17, 2007
In re:
------------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-23444
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PHILIP S. HOWE
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 28 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor.  He has $32,674
in delinquent debts for which he has not established any repayment plan.  He has not mitigated the
financial considerations trustworthiness concern.  Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
Adjudication of trustworthiness cases for ADP I, II, and III positions are resolved using the provisions of DoD1
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), pursuant to the memorandum from Carol A. Haave, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Counterintelligence and Security to DOHA Director, Adjudication of Trustworthiness Cases (Nov. 19, 2004).
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended2
and modified, and the Directive.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
position of trust for Applicant .  On February 1, 2007, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons  (SOR)1 2
detailing the basis for its decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines of the Directive issued on December 29,
2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense, effective September 1, 2006.  Applicant
answered the SOR in writing on February 26, 2007, and Applicant requested his case be decided on
the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
On March 29, 2007, Department Counsel submitted the Department’s written case.  A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant.  He was given
the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation.
Applicant did not file a response to the FORM.  The case was assigned to me on June 14, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant's admissions to some of the SOR allegations are incorporated as findings of fact.
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and full consideration of that
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 28 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor as a service
representative.  He started work for this employer in November 2004.  He was unemployed from
April 2001, to September 2002, and again from October 2002, to October 2003.  He has 18
delinquent debts.  He has not repaid any of these debts.  He claims to have a consolidation repayment
plan for seven of the debts, but did not submit any documents showing the plan, or that he is making
payments.  Some debts he claims are not his and are the result of identify theft, but provided no
objective evidence to support his claim. (Items 2-5)
Applicant’s delinquent debts as alleged in the SOR and their current payment status are as
follows:
SOR ALLEGATION CURRENT STATUS
1.a. Apartment rent, $883 Admits, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.b. Utility bill, $225 Denies, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.c. Consumer debt, $1,524 Admits, unpaid; no documentation of purported
debt consolidation plan. Items 2-5
3
1.d. Consumer debt, $2,849 Admits, unpaid, no documentation of purported
debt consolidation plan. Items 2-5
1.e. Telephone bill, $804 Denies, claims he cannot contact creditor,
unpaid. Items 2-5
1.f. Cable television bill, $77 Admits, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.g. Consumer debt, $892 Admits, unpaid, claims it is in debt
consolidation plan, but no documentation.
Items 2-5
1.h. Consumer debt, $101 Denies and delinquent since July 2003, unpaid.
Items 2-5 
1.i. Consumer debt, $245 Denies, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.j. Hospital bill, $83 Denies, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.k. Telephone bill, $235 Denies, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.l. Telephone bill, $453 Denies, unpaid. Items 2-5
1.m. Telephone bill, $7,723 Denies, claims fraudulent, no documentation of
fraud or that his is paying the bill, unpaid. Items
2-5
1.n. Education debt, $4,057 Admits, unpaid, wages garnished to pay debt of
$12,753.58 since January 19, 2007. Items 2
(including garnishment letter of January 4,
2007)-5
1.o. Education debt, $2,917 Admits, unpaid, wages garnished since January
19, 2007, to pay.  Items 2-5
1.p. Education debt, $3,176 Admits, unpaid, wages garnished since January
19, 2007, to pay.  Items 2-5
1.q. Consumer debt, $900 Denies he ever had such an account, unpaid,
delinquent since May 2000.  Items 2-5
1.r. Auto loan debt, $5,530 Admits he co-signed loan for aunt who failed
to make payments.  Car was repossessed. 
Aunt later died.  Unpaid.  Items 2-5
POLICIES
4
As Commander in Chief, 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.” Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his
designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that
it is clearly consistent the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information with Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960).  By direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Counterintelligence and Security, adjudications of cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense
Security Service or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for a trustworthiness determination
shall be conducted under the provisions of the Directive.  Eligibility for a position of trust is
predicated upon the applicant meeting the guidelines contained in the Directive and a finding it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so. See Directive ¶ 2.3.  An applicant “has the
ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his trustworthiness determination.” See Directive ¶ E3.1.15
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive
sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) under each guideline that must be carefully considered in making the overall
common sense determination required.  The decision to deny an individual eligibility to occupy a
position of trust is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or.
10865 § 7.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a such a determination.
In evaluating the trustworthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess
the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive.  Those assessments include:  (1) the
nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and
the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (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 (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2).  Because each case
presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust
the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case.  Moreover, although
adverse information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable
determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or
recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the
Guidelines.
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible to occupy a position of trust.  The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an
applicant’s trustworthiness suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).
All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for
mishandling classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  ISCR
Case No. 00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001).  Once the Government has
5
established a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate
burden of demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
trustworthiness determination. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 2002).  “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.” Directive ¶ E2.2.2
Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative
guideline most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:
Guideline F: Financial Considerations: The Concern: 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 could 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.
Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage.  Affluence
that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern.  It may indicate
proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
“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.”
(Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1)  Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets forth the adjudicative policy, as well as
the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) associated with each guideline.
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the adjudication procedures contained in the Directive.
(Regulation ¶ C8.2.1)
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F: Applicant owes $32,674 in delinquent debts.  The only debts he is repaying are
three education loans by garnishment.  He is not voluntarily repaying those debts.  Applicant claimed
he put some debts into a debt consolidation program, but did not submit any documents to support
his assertion.  The disqualifying conditions applicable are Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Condition ¶19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), ¶19.b. (indebtedness caused by
frivolous or irresponsible spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay
the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the debt), and ¶19.c. (a history of not meeting financial
obligations).
Applicant has done nothing to dispute, pay, or resolve these delinquent debts.  Nor are there
any conditions beyond his control that explain or excuse his failure to repay these debts.  Therefore,
no mitigating conditions in ¶20 of Guideline F can be applied.
Whole Person Analysis  “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”
trustworthiness decision.  Directive E2.2.1.  “Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.” Id.  In
6
evaluating Applicant’s case, I have considered the adjudicative process factors listed in the Directive
¶E2.2.1.
Considering the criteria of the “whole person concept,” I conclude the nature of Applicant’s
debt problem, the extent or magnitude of his debt for a person only 28 years old, and the lack of
efforts he has made to repay the seven debts under $500 to be a serious lack of attention to his
financial responsibilities.  He knowingly and voluntarily accumulated these debts without sufficient
income to repay them while unemployed or in college.  There is no rehabilitation, or behavioral
change in Applicant’s conduct toward his financial responsibilities and debts.  The magnitude of
these debts makes Applicant a potential target for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, and he
is likely to continue his attitude toward his obligations to repay his debts based on his past
performance.  His failure to manage responsibly his finances indicates poor judgment.
I conclude the financial considerations trustworthiness concern against Applicant.  I also
conclude the “whole person concept” against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. to 1.r: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties.
His application for eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is denied.
Philip S. Howe
Administrative Judge