DATE:  October 26, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-23550
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ERIN C. HOGAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has approximately $14,094 in delinquent debt and a $60,452 student loan account
that was in deferment.  Approximately $10,651 of the delinquent debt are medical accounts related
to past and current health issues. Several factors beyond Applicant's control have caused and
continue to cause financial problems for her. She fully disclosed her financial situation when she
completed her trustworthiness application. She does not live above her means. Under her current
circumstances, she has acted responsibly. Trustworthiness concerns are mitigated. Applicant's
eligibility for an assignment to a sensitive position is granted.
 This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; and  Memorandum1
from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Counterintelligence and Security, titled "Adjudication of Trustworthiness
Cases," dated November 19, 2004.
 Tr. at 5; Gov 1.2
 Tr. at 10. 3
 Tr. at 11.4
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
On September 23, 2005, Applicant submitted an application for a position of public trust. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant the application under
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (the "Directive"); and the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines,
approved December 29, 2005, and effective September 1, 2006.  On February 20, 2007, DOHA1
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR, which
is in essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.
In a sworn statement dated March 12, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
elected to have her case heard before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another
administrative judge on June 20, 2007. The case was transferred to me on August 2, 2007. A Notice
of Hearing was issued on August 23, 2007, scheduling the hearing for September 18, 2007.  The
hearing was held as scheduled. The government offered four exhibits which were admitted as
Government (Gov) Exhibits 1-4 without objection.  Applicant offered one 17 page exhibit which was
admitted as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A without objection.  The record was held open until October
2, 2007, to allow Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documents.  Applicant timely
submitted a 50 page document which was marked and admitted as AE B without objection. The
transcript (Tr.) was received on September 28, 2007.  
FINDINGS OF FACT
In her SOR response, Applicant admits the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and  1.j but denies all
the remaining SOR allegations. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated herein. In addition, after
a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 35-year-old woman employed with a Department of Defense contractor who
is seeking a position of public trust.  She is divorced and has two children, a daughter, age 12, and2
a son, age 11.  She is an operations and processing specialist with a healthcare company that works3
on a government contract.  She has worked for the company for approximately five years.  She
worked as a term employee for 18 months and was made permanent in October 2004.     4
 Gov 1. 5
 Answer to SOR, dated March 12, 2007.6
 Tr. at 23, 27-32.7
 Tr. at 23. 8
 Tr. at 28, 32.9
 Tr. at 29-31. 10
 Tr. at 30. 11
 Tr. at 34; AE B at 23.12
 Tr. at 10. 13
3
On September 23, 2005, Applicant completed a public trust position application (SF 85-P).
She attached a Trans Union credit report , dated June 2, 2005 to the application.5
A subsequent background investigation revealed that Applicant had the following delinquent
accounts: a $227 delinquent phone bill account placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.a, Tr. at 21-22; Gov
1, Trans Union at 2; Gov 3 at 1; Gov 4 at 2); a $61 account owed to a phone company placed for
collection (SOR ¶ 1.b, Tr. at 22); a $160 medical account, placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.c; Tr. at
23; Gov 1, Trans Union at 4; Gov 4 at 2); $115 dental account placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.d; Tr.
at 27-28; Gov 1, Trans Union at 4; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 2); a $914 account placed for collection in
May 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.e; Tr. at 28; Gov 6 at 5); a $885 phone bill charged off in June 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.f;
Tr. at 29; Gov 1, Trans Union at 5; Gov 2 at 3; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 3); a $1,356 account placed for
collection in February 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.g; Tr. at 32; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 3); a $60,452 student loan
account more than 120 days past due (SOR ¶ 1.h; Tr. at 35; Gov 3 at 3); and a $10,376 medical
account, placed for collection in June 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.i; Tr. at 37; Gov 1; Trans Union at 4; Gov 2
at 9).
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admits that she is unable pay her delinquent debts. 6
She claims that she is unaware of the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, 1.e and 1.g.   She currently7
has an account with the debtor alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b and owes them $400.   She thinks the accounts8
alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.g might be her ex-husband's credit cards.  She terminated a cell phone9
contract with the cell phone company that is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. The cell phone company charged
an excessive termination fee. She contested this charge a few years ago.  10
Applicant's financial problems began when she separated from her husband in December
2001.  She filed for divorce and the divorce became final in December 2002.   Initially, Applicant11
had custody of their daughter and her ex-husband had custody of their son. Applicant gained full
custody of both children in April 2006 after charges were filed against her ex-husband for sodomy
and sex abuse of his stepchild in 2005.  Her ex-husband's court proceedings continue. Applicant12
receives very little child support ($58 a week) because her ex-husband's income was reduced as a
result of the pending charges.   13
 Tr. at 11; AE A at 6, 11-13,  14
 AE B at 37. 15
 Tr. at 20-21; 52.16
 Tr. at 21; AE  A at 7. 17
 Tr. at 19. 18
 Tr. at 20. 19
 Tr. at 19; AE A at  14-15. 20
 Tr. at 19-20, 26-27; AE A at 17. 21
 Tr. at 20; AE A at 3-4. 22
 Tr. at 33-34. 23
4
In February 2007, her 12-year-old daughter was raped. She has incurred additional medical
expenses and prescription medications related to her daughter's treatment.  In July 2007, Applicant14
moved out of the apartment complex where the rape occurred out of concern for her daughter.  Her
daughter suffers from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the rape.   She moved in with a15
cousin and her rent has been reduced from $714 a month to approximately $300 a month plus
utilities.   She made arrangements with the apartment complex to pay what she owes them.  She16
owed a total of $1,088.  Her $500 security deposit was applied towards this debt. In August 2007,
she entered into a repayment agreement, and is currently paying $100 a month until the debt is paid
in full.   17
Applicant has several health issues that contributed to her financial situation. Most of her
delinquent accounts are medical bills. She did not have health insurance when she was a term
employee. In 2005, while she was uninsured, she was treated in the emergency room and hospitalized
and required three blood transfusions.  She incurred approximately $10,000 in medical bills as a18
result (SOR ¶ 1.i).   In June 2007, she had back surgery and was placed on the disabled list by her19
doctor. She was also placed on Family Medical Leave. Even though her doctor advised her not to
return to work until August 6, 2007, she returned to work earlier in order to earn money to pay her
bills.20
One of the hospitals garnished Applicant's paycheck. They recently stopped garnishing her
paycheck.  She does not know why but thinks it might be related to a request for financial assistance
that she submitted.  The total amount of the garnishment was $10,000 and relates to Applicant's 2005
hospital treatment while uninsured.  The hospital's charity fund took care of two of the medical bills21
in the amount of $837 and $500.22
Applicant has not attempted to contact the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f. and 1.g. Her
focus right now is to focus on the needs of her children. She realizes that she has bills to pay but her
children are more important to her.  She claims that her student loan account is in deferment and23
is working with the student loan company to extend the deferment. She claims that her student loans
 Tr. at 35-36.24
 Tr. at 5.25
 Tr. at 36. 26
 AE B at 35. 27
 Tr. at 37-38, 41. 28
 Tr. at 38-39. 29
 Tr. at 45; AE B at 37. 30
 Tr. at 40; 47-48; AE A at 6; AE B at 13-17. 31
 Tr. at 45. 32
 Tr. at 40, 33
 Tr. at 40. 34
 Tr. at 43. 35
 Tr. at 54-55. 36
5
have never been delinquent.  She has been taking college courses off and on since 1998. She24
intended to take classes off campus recently but that was put on hold after her daughter's rape. She
needs 20 more credits to earn her degree.  She claims that she currently does not have time to25
complete her college courses.26
Applicant pays her cousin $300 a month for rent and is responsible for half the utility bill,
and anything above the amount he normally pays. She pays car insurance of $834 annually,
approximately $69.50 per month.  She does not have a car payment. She purchased a 1987 car from27
a relative about two years ago for $750, and it is paid off.  She gets financial assistance for before28
and after school care for her son which costs $67 a week.  She pays $88 a month for a storage unit.29 30
She pays for her daughter's prescription medications. Her insurance does not cover anything
until after she pays a $4,000 deductible.  The state Crime Victim's Compensation Board will
reimburse Applicant for some, but not all, of her daughter's medical costs which were incurred as
a result of the rape.  She makes too much income to qualify for additional assistance.  Applicant31 32
is current on her state and federal income taxes.  She receives a tax refund and applies the refunds
towards her debts.  She has no credit cards but has one debit card.  She has not opened any new33 34
accounts.35
Applicant's co-worker testified that Applicant is the only permanent employee in the
department. She is currently training as a back-up to Applicant, and is amazed at the amount of
knowledge and work that she does. She states that Applicant is truly an asset to her position and truly
knows how to get the work done.  Applicant's work performance is also reflected by favorable36
 AE B at 2-6.37
 AE B at 40-42; 43-50. 38
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  39
 Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 18.40
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.41
 Id.42
6
comments she received from co-workers and customers.  Performance evaluations from her current37
and a previous employer also indicate that she is a valued employee.38
POLICIES
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding39
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive and the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines,
effective September 1, 2006.  The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines sets forth personnel security
guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under each guideline.
The adjudicative guideline at issue in this case is: 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations - 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.40
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to this adjudicative guidelines, is set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below.
“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.”    An administrative41
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available,
reliable information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following42
factors: (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)
 Id.43
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.44
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.45
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).46
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.47
7
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.   43
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR
that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified
information.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,44
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is45
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt46
as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be
resolved in favor of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations47
for access to sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline F - Financial Considerations.
Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) ¶ 19(a)
(Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and ¶19(c) (A history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply to Applicant's case. Applicant has struggled financially since 2001. She currently has
approximately $14,094 in delinquent debt.  She will soon be required to resume payments on her
student loan accounts which have a total approximate balance of $60,452.  Applicant has been unable
to resolve much of this debt due to her limited income.
The concern under Financial Considerations can be mitigated. Applicant  has a history of
financial irresponsibility spanning several years. She still has significant financial problems.
Therefore, I cannot apply Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) ¶ 20 (a) (the
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment).
FC MC ¶ 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)
applies. Applicant's financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control. Her
8
financial problems began after her divorce in 2001. She supports two children while receiving
minimal child support from her ex-husband who is pending serious criminal charges. The probability
of additional child support is, at best, uncertain. She has several medical issues that caused her to
incur a lot of medical expenses when she had no health insurance.  She continues to incur medical
costs having recently undergone back surgery in June 2007.  She was on Family Medical Leave for
a several weeks after the back surgery which reduced her income. The unfortunate rape of her 12-
year-old daughter in February 2007 triggered additional medical costs and related expenses. The
shock of this event continues to cause Applicant great distress.
Applicant meets the first element of FC MC ¶ 20(b) - (the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person's control).  A question remains as to whether she
met the second element of FC MC ¶ 20(b) - (and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances). Given the circumstances that Appellant has endured over the past several years, she
has acted as responsibly as is within her means.  Applicant is still dealing with circumstances that are
beyond her control. She and her daughter's health cause medical expenses. The status of her ex-
husband is uncertain. She is still coping with the aftermath of her daughter's rape.  While she states
that she has not taken steps to resolve the delinquent accounts, given her situation this is reasonable.
She did not hide her financial situation when she filled out her trustworthiness application.  She even
attached a copy of her credit report to her application. She has made attempts to resolve her
delinquent medical accounts by applying for financial assistance with the hospital. Of the delinquent
debts, which total $14,094, approximately $10,651 are for medical accounts.  Applicant has only
$3,443 of delinquent consumer debt.  She does have a  significant student loan balance but she is
working with the student loan company to make sure the account does not default. She does not live
above her means. She recently moved in with a relative in order to reduce her living expenses. Her
trustworthiness and reliability is demonstrated by her five years of favorable work performance with
her current employer.  Considering her current situation, she is acting responsibly. For these reasons,
I conclude FC MC ¶ 20 (b) applies.
Based on the facts of this case, I find that circumstances beyond Applicant's control have
adversely affected her financial situation. She has mitigated the financial considerations
trustworthiness concern. Guideline F is decided for Applicant.
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, common sense assessment of
a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to
sensitive duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in
considering the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality
of their acts, omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own
merits, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature
thinking, and careful analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s
trustworthiness. While Applicant has financial problems, many factors beyond her control contributed
to the situation. She fully disclosed her financial problems when she submitted her trustworthiness
application. She has a five year track record of  favorable performance with her current employer. She
is highly regarded by her clients and coworkers. She has acted responsibly under the circumstances
that she has endured over the past several years. Applicant should be advised that it is in her best
9
interests to seek out financial counseling in order to deal with her financial situation after things settle
down in order to avoid this issue should she apply for a renewal of a trustworthiness position in the
future. Based on the evidence in the record and the particular facts of this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility
is granted.
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 1. Guideline F: 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
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the evidence presented in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties.  Eligibility is granted.
Erin C. Hogan
Administrative Judge