DATE:  October 25, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 07-01283
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ERIN C. HOGAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in December 1997. In April 1998, she withdrew the
bankruptcy filing, and resolved the debts on her own.  From 2001 to December 2006, Applicant
encountered additional financial problems. She assumed responsibility for supporting her mother
who has serious health issues but no health insurance. During this period, she incurred 17 delinquent
debts with a total balance of $9,666, and her family home was foreclosed.  In December 2006, her
mother qualified for disability and medicare insurance and no longer depends on Applicant for
support. Applicant accepted a better paying job in another state and has systematically attempted to
resolve her delinquent accounts. She mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised under financial
considerations. Applicant's eligibility for an assignment to a position of public trust 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 6; Gov 1.2
 Tr. at 6-7. 3
 Tr. at 24. 4
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
On February 21, 2006, 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 April 9, 2007, DOHA issued1
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 May 8, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
elected to have her case decided on the administrative record. At some point, prior to June 21, 2007,
she verbally requested a hearing. Her request for a hearing was confirmed in writing on August 23,
2007.  The case was assigned to another administrative judge on June 21, 2007. The case was
transferred to me on August 2, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on August 30, 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 14 exhibits which was admitted as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A - N without
objection.  The record was held open until October 2, 2007, to allow Applicant the opportunity to
submit additional documents.  Applicant timely submitted a 21 page document which was marked
and admitted as AE O without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was received on September 28, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In her SOR response, Applicant denies the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.f, 1.h, 1.k, 1.l, 1.m,
1.n, 1.o, and 1.r and admits to 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 31 year-old woman employed with a Department of Defense contractor who
is seeking a position of public trust.  She is single and has a nine-year-old daughter.  She has never2 3
received child support from the father of her child. She did not pursue paternity proceedings due to
a domestic violence incident which occurred when she was three months pregnant.  She has an4
 Tr. at 7. 5
 Gov 1. 6
 Response to SOR, Gov 2 at 1; Gov 4 at 1.7
 Tr. at 31-34. 8
 Tr. at 68. 9
 Tr. at 29-30, 68; Answer to SOR.10
3
associates degree in medical office management and is a certified medical assistant. She has been
with her current employer since February 2006 and is a referral management center liaison.5
On February 21, 2006, Applicant completed a public trust position application (SF 85-P).
In response to question "19. Your Financial Record - Bankruptcy, Liens, Judgments. In the last 7
years have you, or a company over which you exercised some control, filed for bankruptcy, been
declared bankrupt, been subject to a tax lien, or had a legal judgment rendered against you for a
debt?" Applicant listed a home foreclosure in April 2005.  6
A subsequent background investigation revealed that Applicant filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy in December 1997.  She listed $750 in assets and $11,717 in liabilities. The bankruptcy
was dismissed in April 1998.   Applicant was encouraged to file for bankruptcy by her parents. At7
the time she was a single parent and they thought it would be best if she started fresh. She voluntarily
withdrew the bankruptcy in April 1998 after thinking about the repercussions of filing for
bankruptcy. She paid most of the debts by contacting creditors and asking for settlements. None of
the debts are listed in the current Statement of Reasons.8
Applicant encountered additional financial difficulties in 2001. Her father passed away
unexpectedly on March 5, 2001. Her mother has several health issues to include end stage renal
disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.  She was unable to support and/or take care of herself.9
Applicant supported her mother as well as her young daughter. Her mother had insurance coverage
through COBRA for about a year after her father's death until Applicant could no longer afford the
premium. Her mother became more ill and had a series of emergency room visits and
hospitalizations as summarized in AE A. Applicant was employed full-time and spent a  large part
of her income on medication costs for her mother as referenced in AE B as well as co-payments for
doctor visits and diagnostic procedures. Certain bills were neglected because Applicant's priorities
were her mother's health and supporting her daughter.   10
A credit report dated February 12, 2007, revealed the following delinquent accounts: a $600
judgment obtained in February 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.b); a $411 judgment obtained in December 2004
(SOR ¶ 1.c); a $2,214 judgment obtained in September 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.d); a $2,204 judgment
obtained in January 1999 (SOR ¶ 1.e); five separate medical debts placed for collection, total balance
$368 (SOR ¶ 1.f); a $370 check cashing account placed for collection in July 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.g); a
$593 account placed for collection in June 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.h); a $503 cable company account placed
for collection in April 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.i); a $741 utility bill placed for collection in May 2006 (SOR
¶ 1.j); a $205 account placed for collection in May 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.k); a $575 account placed for
 Gov 2. 11
 Tr. at 55-56; AE G; Answer to SOR. 12
 Tr. at 26; AE K at 23. 13
 AE L. 14
 AE C. 15
 AE D. 16
 AE E. 17
 Answer to SOR.    18
 Tr. at 35, 38-39.19
 Tr. at 52-53. 20
 AE G at 2. 21
4
collection in August 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.l); a $40 account placed for collection in July 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.m);
a $46 account charged off in September 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.n); a $283 account charged off in August
2001 (SOR ¶ 1.o); a $610 account placed for collection in May 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.p); a $91 cell phone
account charged off in May 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.q); a $141 account placed for collection in December
2001 (SOR ¶ 1.r).   11
In May 2005, Applicant's home was foreclosed as a result of not being able to keep up with
the mortgage payments. She realized that she needed to find a job in an area where the cost of living
was lower and she could earn more money.  In December 2006, her mother was approved for
disability and Medicare insurance.   In February 2006, Applicant moved to another state to accept12
the position with her current employer.  Her previous job paid her an hourly wage of $14.57. Her
current salary is $21.75 an hour, approximately $42,328 a year.  Pay stubs from her previous13
employer indicate that her income increased when she accepted her new job.  14
In October 2006, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator as part of her background
investigation.  The investigator showed her a copy of her credit report which listed the delinquent
accounts.  After the interview, Applicant obtained a copy of her credit report  and began to dispute15
several of the accounts listed.   In April 2007, she enrolled in a debt consolidation program to repay16
her debts.  The consolidation program is assisting her in determining whether several accounts that17
she disputes are valid. She is formally disputing the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.k, 1.l, 1.m, 1.q,
and 1.r.  If the debts are valid, she will make arrangements to pay the debt.  The accounts alleged18
in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d are paid.  The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.n, and 1.o were formally disputed and19
were taken off her credit report because they were concluded to be fraudulent accounts.  Although20
Applicant included the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.p in her debt consolidation, it appears they
might be resolved. Significant payments were made to both creditors during the mortgage
settlement.21
The current status of the delinquent accounts are:
5
SOR
Paragraph
Debt Status Record
1.b $600 judgment related to a
check.
Paid. Tr. at 35, AE F; AE O at
2-4; Gov 2 at 1; Gov 3
at 2; Gov 4 at 1-2.
1.c $411judgment. Debt consolidation. Tr. at 36; AE E at 3; AE
O at 15; AE C at 2-3;
Gov 2 at 1; Gov 3 at 2;
Gov 4 at 1.
1.d $2,214 judgment. Paid. Initial debt
consolidation,
discovered debt
was paid.
Tr. at 38-39; AE O at 6; 
AE C at 2; AE D at 1;
AE E at 3; Gov 2 at 1;
Gov 4 at 1.
1.e $2,204 judgment. Disputes, claims
paid - possibly
paid.
Tr. at 40; AE O at 7; AE
G at 2;  Gov 2 at 1; Gov
4 at 2.
1.f $368 total for five
unidentified medical
accounts.
Certain med
accounts are in debt
consolidation. Due
to lack of
specificity in
pleading unable to
determine if it fits
actual allegation. 
Tr. at 42-45; AE E at 3;
AE O at 17-20; AE C at
3, 6, 7, 9; Gov 2 at 1-2;
Gov 4 at 2.
1.g $370 collection account. Debt
Consolidation.  
Tr. at 46; AE E at 3; AE
O at 8, 9, 15; AE C at 7;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at 2.
1.h $593 collection account. Formally disputed.
Will pay if valid.
Tr. at 46-48; AE O at
10; Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at
2.
1.i $503 cable collection
account.
Debt consolidation. Tr. at 48; AE E at 3; AE
O at 11, 15; AE C at 4;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at 2.
i.j $741 utility collection
account.
Debt consolidation. Tr. at 49; AE E at 3; AE
O at 12, 15; AE C at 6; 
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at 2.
1.k $205 collection account. Formally disputed.
Will pay if valid.
Tr. at 50; AE O at 10;
Gov 2 at 2.
1.l $575 collection account. Formally disputed.
Will pay if valid.
Tr. at 51; AE O at 13;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at 2.
 Tr. at 69. 22
 AE E at 5. 23
 AE E; AE I; AE O at 15.24
 Tr. at 69. 25
6
1.m $40 collection account. Formally disputed.
Will pay if valid. 
Tr. at 52; AE D at 1, 5;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 4 at 2. 
1.n $46 charged off account. Not Applicant's
debt, fraudulent
account. 
Successfully
disputed.
Tr. at 52-53; AE H; AE
D at 2, 8, 9; AE C at 8;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 3 at 3;
Gov 4 at 2. 
1.o $283 charged off account. Not Applicant's
debt, fraudulent
account. 
Successfully
disputed.
Tr. at 52-53; AE H; AE
D at 2, 8, 9; AE C at 7;
Gov 2 at 2; Gov 3 at 3. 
1.p $610 collection account. Debt consolidation
- possibly paid.
Tr. at 54; AE G at 2; Ae
E at 3; AE O at 14, 15;
AE C at 3-4; Gov 2 at 2;
Gov 4 at 3.
1.q $91 charged off cell phone
account. 
Debt consolidation
- initially disputed. 
Tr. at 56; AE D at 2,13;
AE E at 3; AE O at 15,
21; AE C at 10, 14; gov
2 at 2; Gov 3 at 3; Gov
4 at 3. 
1.r $141 collection account. Formally disputed.
Will pay if valid.
Tr. at 57-58; AE O at
14; Gov 2 at 2; Gov 3 at
3, 5; Gov 4 at 3. 
When Applicant enrolled in the debt consolidation program, she underwent financial
counseling and established a budget.  Her net monthly income is $2,465.67. Her total monthly22
expenses are $1,696. A $410 pre-plan monthly payment is listed. Her pre-plan disposable income
is $359.67. Her consolidation plan payment is $219.  She has approximately $140 left over each
month after total expenses.  Her payments towards the debt consolidation are taken directly out of23
her paycheck. She has made consistent payments since the payment plan started on May 15, 2007.24
Her debt consolidation plan will last for two years.25
 Tr. at 65. 26
 Tr. at 27. 27
 AE J;  AE N.28
 AE K. 29
 AE K at 29.30
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  31
 Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 18.32
7
Applicant understands the importance of clearing her debt. She has not opened any new credit
card accounts. She recently had to purchase a car because her previous car broke down.  She26
purchased a 1999 used car for $6,995. Her car payment is $300 a month.  27
Applicant's friends and co-workers submitted character references attesting to her good
character and excellent work ethic.   Her performance evaluations are favorable.   Her most recent28 29
evaluation describes her as an excellent, crisp, communicator. She knows the technical aspects of
her position very well and interacts effectively with others. Her position is critical to the company's
success.30
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, Safeguarding31
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.32
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.33
 Id.34
 Id.35
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.36
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.37
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).38
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.39
8
Conditions that could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to this adjudicative guideline, 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 administrative33
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 following34
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)
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.   35
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,36
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is37
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt38
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 determinations39
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 encountered financial problems around 1997 which resulted in
her filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  She eventually withdrew from the bankruptcy and resolved the
9
debts on her own.  In 2001, she encountered financial difficulties again after the unexpected death of
her father resulting in her assuming the responsibility for supporting her mother. Her mother's health
issues caused further expenses due to her lack of health insurance. Applicant incurred approximately
17 delinquent accounts, an approximate total of $9,666. The family home was foreclosed in 2005 due
to an inability to pay the mortgage.
Several Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) potentially apply.  Applicant
has a history of financial irresponsibility spanning several years. Although she has made progress, her
financial situation is not completely resolved. Therefore, I cannot apply 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 with respect to Applicant's most recent financial problems beginning in 2001. In addition to
being the sole provider for her young daughter, Applicant assumed responsibility for the care and
support of her mother. Her mother has significant health issues and had no health insurance until 2006
which was an additional financial burden on Applicant. It appears that the delinquent accounts related
to daily living expenses as opposed to unnecessary luxury items. Once Applicant's mother was
approved for disability, Applicant sought out a better paying job in a less expensive area. After she
was interviewed by the investigator during her background investigation, she took pro-active steps
to resolve her accounts.  Several accounts were resolved.  She enrolled in a debt consolidation
program and has made timely and consistent payments towards the program. She encountered
financial problems due to conditions that were beyond her control. Once her mother received health
and disability benefits, she was able to focus on the delinquent accounts and  has pro-actively
attempted to resolve her delinquent accounts. She acted responsibly under the circumstances.   
 FC MC ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) applies.  Applicant
received financial counseling in conjunction with her debt consolidation program. She has established
a budget and is able to meet her expenses. She is making timely payments towards her debt
consolidation program. She has a good understanding of her current financial situation and does not
live beyond her means. It appears that her financial situation is likely to be resolved in the near future.
FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) applies. In 1997, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy but later withdrew
her petition and resolved her delinquent debts on her own.  Beginning in 2001, she struggled to
support her ill mother and her young daughter.  Due to her mother's health costs, she was unable to
resolve her accounts until 2006, when her mother qualified for disability.  When this occurred, she
was able to accept a better paying job in another state. She then took the initiative to resolve her
delinquent accounts.  Some accounts have been paid. Others are being paid in her debt consolidation
program.  She is formally disputing other accounts but intends to pay them if they are established as
valid debts. She has demonstrated that she has made a good-faith effort to resolve her delinquent
accounts.
10
Applicant 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, commonsense 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. In addition to Applicant's efforts made towards resolving her accounts, I considered
her favorable performance reviews and reference letters from friends and co-workers. Based on the
evidence in the record, 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
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: 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
11
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