KEYWORD: Financial Considerations
DIGEST:   Applicant has a history of overdue debts. He has made no attempt to resolve these
debts.  Mitigation has not been shown. A determination of trustworthiness and access to personal
sensitive information is denied.
CASENO: 06-22278.h1
DATE:09/24/2007
DATE: September 24, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ----------------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-22278
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
  Applicant has a history of overdue debts. He has made no attempt to resolve these debts.
2
Mitigation has not been shown. A determination of trustworthiness and access to personal sensitive
information is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Systems Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASD C3I) entered into a memorandum of
agreement for DOHA to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed
in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2R, Personnel Security
Program (Regulation), dated January of 1987.
On March 19, 2007, DOHA, pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the
Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding
under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
determination of trustworthiness, suitability, and eligibility for the Applicant to hold a sensitive
Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III).
In a signed and sworn statement, notarized on May 10, 2007, Applicant responded to the
SOR allegations (RSOR)and requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.
On June 29, 2007, this case was assigned to this Administrative Judge to conduct a hearing
and issue a written decision,. A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on August 20, 2007, and
the hearing was conducted on September 11, 2007. 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits (Exhibits 1 through
7) and no witnesses were called. Applicant offered no documentary exhibits at the hearing but
offered his own testimony and that of his mother. The record  held open until September 19, 2007,
to allow Applicant to offer additional documents. No documents were received by that date. The
transcript (Tr) was received on September 19, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the SOR, the Government alleges concern under Adjudicative Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of the Directive. The SOR contains six allegations, 1.a., through 1.f., under
Guideline F. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The admitted allegations
are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
RSOR, the admitted documents, and the live testimony, and upon due consideration of that evidence,
3
I make the following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 26 years old. He is married, and he has one son.  Applicant is a customer Service
Representative for a defense contractor who seeks an ADP-I/II/III position on behalf of the
Applicant.  
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists six allegations of overdue debts, 1.a. through 1.f., under Adjudicative
Guideline F. As stated above, Applicant’s has admitted owing each of these debts under Guideline
F, totaling approximately $17,000, and at the time of the hearing none of these debts had been
resolved or even reduced. The debts will be listed in the same order as they were in the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $564.
1.b. This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $114.
1.c. This overdue debt to Creditor 3 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,576.
1.d. This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $350.
1.e. This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $292.
1.f. This overdue debt to Creditor 6 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $14,943.
Applicant conceded that he was aware of the concern of the Government with these overdue
debts, since he first received interrogatories regarding his finances in January 2007, and he became
even more  aware of the concern after he received the SOR in March 2007, but he did not make any
attempt to resolve any of these debts, even the smallest ones, and he failed to contact any of the
creditors. Applicant stated that he believed all of the debts had to resolved all at once, which he was
not able to do, so he took no action.  
When Applicant’s  mother testified, she stated that she had been advising her son ,for some
time, to consult a credit counselor to see if Applicant could get help in resolving his overdue debts.
Applicant could give no valid explanation as to why he had failed to follow his mother’s advice. 
Applicant did explain that debt 1.f., which is clearly the largest debt, arose as a result of his
father having Applicant cosign a loan for a vehicle for his father. When Applicant’s father failed to
make payments on the vehicle, it was repossessed. Since Applicant’s father then filed for bankruptcy,
Applicant was responsible for the entire debt.   
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
4
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
 c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.”
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline F, which establishes doubt about a
person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational connection, or nexus, must be
shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his suitability for a sensitive Systems Position,
with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not
required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant is presently qualifies for a sensitive Systems Position.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and
factors, I conclude the following with respect to Guideline F: 
(Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The Government has established its case under Guideline F. The record evidence clearly
establishes Applicant's long history of indebtedness, and there is no evidence that Applicant has
resolved these overdue debts or even made an attempt.
Applicant's overall conduct pertaining to his financial obligations falls within Financial
5
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (DC) 19. (a), and DC 19. (c), a history of not meeting
financial obligations, and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. While Mitigating Condition
(MC) 20. (b) could be argued to apply, because the largest part of Applicant’s debt arose through the
actions of his father, Applicant has failed to take any action to attempt to resolve this overdue debt,
thus failing to act responsibly, so this Mitigating Condition does not apply in this case. I do not find
that any other Mitigating Condition is applicable to this case. 
Until Applicant makes a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, and he can establish a record
of financial responsibility and stability, concerns will continue to exist under Guideline F. I resolve
Guideline F against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against   Applicant 
DECISION
In light of 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 the Applicant to hold a sensitive Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III).
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge