KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to 2000.
As of the date of her response to the file of relevant material, she still had five delinquent debts,
owing approximately $10,900, which have been delinquent for years. Although she established
circumstances beyond her control contributing to her financial problems, her evidence is insufficient
to show that she is in control of her finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial
responsibility. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
CASENO: 06-20768.h1
DATE: 09/19/2007
DATE:  September 19, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-20768
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JUAN J. RIVERA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to 2000. As
of the date of her response to the file of relevant material, she still had five delinquent debts, owing
approximately $10,900, which have been delinquent for years. Although she established
circumstances beyond her control contributing to her financial problems, her evidence is insufficient
to show that she is in control of her finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial
responsibility. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
  S e e  E x e c u t ive  O rd e r  1 0 8 6 5 ,  S a fe g u a rd in g  C la s s i f ie d  In fo r m a t io n  W i th in  I n d u s try  (F e b .  2 0 ,1
1 9 6 0 ,  as  a m e n d e d ,  a n d  m o d i f ie d ,  an d  D e p a r tm e n t  o f  D e fen se  D i re c t ive  5 2 2 0 .6 ,  D e fe n se  In d u s tr ia l
P erso n n e l  S e c u r i ty  C le a ra n c e  R e v ie w  P ro g ra m  ( J a n .  2 ,  1 9 9 2 )  ( D ire c t iv e ) ,  a s  a m e n d e d  a n d  re v ise d .  O n
A u g u s t  3 0 ,  2 0 0 6 ,  th e  U n d e r  S e c r e ta r y  o f  D e fe n s e  ( In te l l ig e n c e )  p u b l i s h e d  a  m e m o r a n d u m  d i re c t in g
a p p lic a t io n  o f  r e v ise d  A d j u d ic a t iv e  G u id e l in e s  to  a l l  a d ju d ic a t io n s  a n d  o th e r  d e te rm in a t io n s  m a d e
u n d e r  th e  D i re c t ive  a n d  D e p a r tm e n t  o f  D e fen se  ( D o D )  R e g u la t io n  5 2 0 0 .2 -R ,  P e rso n n e l  S e c u r i ty
P r o g ra m  (R e g u la t io n ) ,  d a te d  J a nu a ry  1 9 8 7 ,  a s  a m e n d e d ,  in  wh ic h  th e  S O R  w a s  is su e d  o n  o r  a f te r
S e p te m b er  1 ,  2 0 0 6 .
  GE 5 (Office of Personnel Management Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF85P), dated October 24,2
2004), unless indicated otherwise, is the source for the facts in this paragraph.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 25, 2004, Applicant submitted a questionnaire for public trust positions (SF 85P)
(GE 5). On April 5, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a statement of reasons (SOR) alleging facts and trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The SOR informed Applicant that based on available information,
DOHA adjudicators could not make a preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant her eligibility to occupy an automated data processing position (ADP)
designated ADP-I/II/III to support a government contract. Her case was submitted to an
administrative judge for a trustworthiness determination.  1
On April 23, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR. She admitted all the SOR allegations with
explanations and requested a decision without a hearing. On June 22, 2007, Department Counsel
prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which was received by Applicant on July 2, 2007. She
answered the FORM on July 22, 2007, and submitted additional information for consideration within
the 30-day period. The case was assigned to me on August 27, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein as findings of facts.
After a thorough review of Applicant’s answer to the SOR, her answer to the FORM, and the
evidence, I make the following additional findings of facts. 
Applicant is a 38-year-old customer service advocate who has worked for two government
contractors since July 1998.  From September 1998 to May 1999, she attended vocational school and2
was certified as an emergency medical technician and medical assistant. She is divorced (did not
indicate the marriage/divorce dates), and he has two children, a girl age 16, and a boy age 14.
Applicant’s job history shows she was employed as an ambulance driver from February 1996
to July 1998; senior customer service representative from July 1998 to August 2000; unemployed
from August 2000 to September 2000; employed as a medical consultant from September 2000 to
April 2003; customer service representative from April 2003 to July 2004; and employed as a
customer service advocate from July 2004 to the present. She has been working for her current
employer, a government contractor, since July 2004. She has had access to confidential information
since April 2003. There is no evidence that she mishandled or compromised classified information
  GEs 8-10, respectively.3
4
while working for two different government contractors. Applicant has lived in the same residence
since July 1997. 
In her October 2004 public trust position application, Applicant disclosed she was over 180
days delinquent on four debts. The subsequent background investigation addressed Applicant’s
financial situation and included the review of her February 2005, September 2006, and June 2007
credit bureau reports (CBR).  It also included the review of Applicant’s February 2007 answer to3
DOHA interrogatories (GE 6). 
The SOR alleges five  delinquent/charged off accounts owing approximately $10,900. I find
the SOR allegations are supported by the government’s evidence and Applicant’s admissions. As
of the day she answered the FORM, Applicant’ debts remained delinquent. In her April 2007 answer
to the SOR, and in her answers to the DOHA interrogatories, Applicant admitted ¶ 1.a, but claimed
it was paid in full in 2000. She failed, however, to provide information corroborating her claim. The
other four debts remain delinquent as of the date she answered the FORM. 
In her July 22, 2007 answer to the FORM, Applicant claimed she settled the debt alleged in
¶ 1.b and that it would be paid on July 27, 2007; that she would be making $100 payments on the
debts alleged in ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d, beginning on July 27, 2007; and that the debt alleged in ¶ 1.e, was
settled and would be paid in two installments, the first one due on July 27, 2007. She also claimed
that she paid another debt owing $330 (not alleged in the SOR) through a wage garnishment.
Applicant submitted no evidence, other than her statements, to corroborate her claims. 
Applicant’s February 2007 personal financial statement shows her gross monthly income plus
child support totaled approximately $2,700. Her monthly expenses were approximately $700, she paid
$380 in monthly debts, and had $1,749 of unexplained deductions. That left Applicant with a monthly
net remainder of $121. A review of Applicant’s three CBRs show that she has a history of having
financial judgments filed against her, and numerous delinquent and charged off debts. Specifically,
the June 2007 CBR (GE 10) shows (in part) two unsatisfied judgments owing approximately $900,
filed in 2006 and 2007, a $24,800 voluntary repossession of a car, and a $16,400 charge off debt for
a car loan.
Applicant claimed she developed financial problems in 2000 because of her inability to work
full time due to her medical problems, and the death of her daughter’s father in 2006. Her evidence
established mitigating circumstances that likely contributed to her financial problems, i.e., she suffers
from debilitating and serious medical conditions, she is a single parent with limited child support for
her two teenagers, and has had periods of unemployment and underemployment resulting from her
medical problems. Notwithstanding, Applicant’s evidence (other than her uncorroborated statements)
is not sufficient to explain why the alleged debts became delinquent, what efforts, if any, she has
taken to pay, settle, or resolve the debts; the status of her current financial situation (i.e., income,
monthly expenses, debts, etc.); whether she is still financially overextended; whether she has
participated in financial counseling; or whether she has taken any measures to avoid future financial
problems.
Applicant averred that during the last four years she has worked for two different government
contractors and her trustworthiness has never been questioned. She claimed to be diligent and a hard
  Directive, Section 6.3. “Each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination4
based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy
in enclosure 2 . . .”
  AG ¶ 2(a). “. . . The adjudication process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole5
person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should
be considered in reaching a determination. . . .” The whole person concept includes the consideration of “the nature,
extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the
extent to which participation is voluntary; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence. . .”
  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).6
  ISCR Case No. 98-0761 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 27, 1999) (Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less7
than a preponderance of the evidence); ISCR Case No. 02-12199 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2006) (Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the record); Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
  Egan, supra n. 6, at 528, 531.8
5
worker. She averred she has received letters of commendation and awards for her good work
performance. Her main concern is the welfare of her family. She is taking care of her financial
obligations in the best way she can under the circumstances. She considers herself to be honest and
morally sound.
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines (AG) which must be considered in evaluating
an Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position. Foremost are the Disqualifying and Mitigating
conditions under each AG applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the
guidelines are not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The presence or absence of a
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an Applicant.
Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed
in Section 6.3 of the Directive,  and the whole person concept.  Having considered the record4 5
evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline F (Financial Considerations) is the applicable relevant AG.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The purpose of a trustworthiness determination is to resolve whether it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position.  The6
government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in the SOR. To meet its
burden, the government must establish a prima facie case by substantial evidence.  The responsibility7
then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one has
a right to a public trust position, the applicant carries the ultimate burden of persuasion.8
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest to
  See Id; AG ¶ 2(b).9
6
ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will
protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access to
classified information in favor of protecting national security.  The same standard applies in9
trustworthiness determinations.
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the government’s concern is that Applicant’s
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.
It was Applicant’s responsibility to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government's allegations
against her. She failed to provide sufficient evidence to do so. Based on the record evidence, I
conclude that as of July 2007, Applicant had five outstanding delinquent debts (¶¶1.a - 1.e) owing
approximately $10,900. Applicant’s financial problems are recent, not isolated, and ongoing.
Applicant’s unwillingness or inability to honor her financial obligations is evidenced by the
delinquent debts she has been carrying for years, and her failure to show meaningful efforts to repay
creditors or otherwise resolve her financial situation. Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Condition AG ¶ 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not
meeting financial obligations; apply in this case.
Applicant was provided with a copy of the FORM in which the government strongly argued
that Applicant had failed to demonstrate she had resolved the debts alleged in the SOR, that she was
financially solvent, that she had a track record of financial responsibility. Notwithstanding the
government’s concerns, Applicant failed to provide documents to corroborate her assertions. 
Applicant’s evidence raised facts that I considered as circumstances beyond her control
contributing to her financial problems, i.e., her medical condition, she is a single parent, and her
periods of unemployment and/or underemployment resulting from her medical problems.
Notwithstanding, under the totality of the circumstances of her case, Applicant failed to provide
sufficient information to support the applicability of Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition
AG ¶ 20(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. 
Her unemployment/underemployment could be considered as a circumstance beyond her
control, however, Applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to show that she has dealt responsibly with
her financial obligations. Many of her debts preceded her one month period of unemployment. She
failed to submit corroborating information showing her periods of underemployment resulting from
her medical conditions, and the extent to which her medical condition affected her ability to work full
7
time. She also failed to explain the impact on her financial situation caused by the death of her
daughter’s father in 2006.
Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to support the applicability of any of the
Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions. Her evidence is not sufficient to show she has dealt
responsibly with her financial obligations. Applicant presented little or no evidence of meaningful
efforts taken to resolve her debts before or after receipt of the SOR (i.e., paid debts, settlements,
negotiations, payment plans, budgets, financial assistance/counseling). Furthermore, she failed to
present sufficient evidence to show she is not overextended or that her financial problems will not
be a concern in the future. Applicant’s financial history and lack of favorable evidence preclude a
finding that she has established a track record of financial responsibility. Applicant’s available
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate she has taken control of her financial situation and is capable
of overcoming her financial difficulties. On the contrary, her 2007 CBR shows she acquired and
defaulted two additional large debts. 
I have carefully weighed all evidence, and I applied the disqualifying and
mitigating conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guidelines. I specifically
considered Applicant’s answers to the SOR and the FORM, her age, level of education,
her years working for government contractors, her medical condition, her periods of
unemployment/underemployment, that she is a single parent of two, and that there is no
evidence that she ever mishandled or caused the compromise of classified information.
Considering all available information, and the whole person concept, I find Applicant has
not mitigated the Financial Considerations security concern.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings regarding each SOR allegation as required by Directive
Section E3.1.25 are as follows:
Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e Against Applicant
8
DECISION
 
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue eligibility for a public
trust position for Applicant. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
Juan J. Rivera
Administrative Judge