DATE:  November 29, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-22510
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from delinquent debts caused by periods of
unemployment of herself, her husband, and failure of her former husband to pay child support. All
three conditions have now been resolved and she is making payments or arrangements to pay on all
of the debts for which she is responsible. She also mitigated the personal conduct security concern
arising from denial on her SF 85 P of delinquent debts of over 180 days by showing that it was not
deliberate. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On April 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
2
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 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 trustworthiness determination for an ADP clearance for Applicant.
DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether such a
clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.
On May 18, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, and requested a hearing. The
matter was assigned to me on June 22, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on August 28, 2007,
for a hearing on September 11, 2007, which was held that day. The government offered five exhibits
and Applicant offered one exhibit in evidence. All were accepted. The record was left open for two
months for Applicant’s submission of additional material. The transcript was received on September
19, 2007. Three post-hearing submissions were made. The first consisting of four document was
made on September 12, 2007; the second consisting of six documents was made on October 14,
2007; and a third consisting of five documents was made on November 12, 2007. All documents
were admitted in evidence without objection. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all allegations of delinquent debts under the financial considerations
security concern and one allegation under personal conduct regarding erroneous information on her
application for trustworthiness determination (SF 85 P).
Applicant is a 37-year-old customer service representative for a defense contractor health
provider. She obtained this employment in 2006 after a period of unemployment from 2001 to 2003
and temporary employment in 2004 and 2005 (Exh. 1). She was divorced on February 6, 2002, which
caused additional financial hardship. She began paying some debts a year after obtaining her present
job and has been doing so for the past ten months (Tr. 19). She did not take action concerning some
of the other delinquent debts until after the hearing in this matter, but she provided information in
her three  post-hearing submissions concerning the actions she has taken to resolve the debts and the
status of each of them.
Applicant has one son age 16 about whom she has a court order included in her divorce
decree to receive child support from her former husband (Exh. B 6). He was unemployed for a
period, but is now employed and paying the child support payments and on an arrearage of
approximately $5,000 (Tr. 20). 
Applicant’s four largest delinquent debts are as follows with the status of payments and
arrangements with creditors:
1. SOR 1.c. The largest debt is for education loans for $16,555 which was 90 days
delinquent. Applicant is now paying on this loan and it is now current (Exh. A). 
2. SOR 1.g. A debt for $8,143 is from credit card debt that became delinquent in 2004.
3
Payments are being made on this debt of $20 per month with a plan for payment in full by a date
certain (Exhs. B 2 and 4).  
3. SOR 1.b. Auto re-possession in 2002 for $3,196 which was a subject in the Applicant’s
divorce decree in 2002 that made her husband responsible for the debt (Exh. B 6). 
4. SOR 1.f. A debt to the college she attended of $1,475 is covered by an agreement with the
college for monthly payment of $20 which she has begun with a fixed date for final payment (Exh.
C 1). 
A large number of the remaining debts totaling approximately $5,000 concern medical costs
and other credit card debts which accumulated during her periods of unemployment and under-
employment. Some have been resolved and others are still the subject of discussions between
Applicant and the creditor. They are as follows:
1. SOR 1. m. and n. Two credit card debts totaling $348 for which payments of $45 per
month are being made per agreement with the creditor (Exh. C 2). 
2. SOR 1.k. Delinquent debt of $635 which is the subject of an agreement requiring monthly
payments of $25 which has begun (Exh. B 5).
3. SOR 1.d. Delinquent debt of $983 is being investigated by Applicant. She has been in
contact with the attorney for the creditor who asks for half payment, but there is a good prospect to
work out a settlement amount in January 2008. (Exh. C 3). 
4. SOR 1.i. and j. Two hospital bills from same hospital of $713 and $598. Arrangements
made with creditor and payments of $25 per month have begun (Exh. C 5). 
5. SOR 1.a. and h. Investigating these debts of $860 and $1490 as possibly for rent or
telephone since to the same creditor and became due close to same time. Applicant has been in
contact with creditor who demands a large initial payment before documentation can be provided.
She is working on a settlement with the creditors (Exh. C 3). 
6. SOR 1.l. Court fee of $244 now reduced to $24. (Exh. C 3). 
7. SOR 1.o., p., q. and e. These four debts are each for only near $100. Contact has been
made with all four and contact names provided (Exh. C 3). Some payments have been made on all
four debts. 
When Applicant completed her SF 85 P she discussed her financial problems with her
company security staff and advised them that she had credit problems. When she answered Question
20 relating to delinquent debts of 180 days, she erroneously answered it in the negative (Tr. 12-13).
The company advised her after it had been submitted that she had made a mistake. She requested a
hearing to explain the circumstances as well as her delinquent debts. 
Applicant’s salary is $25,000 per annum and she brings home approximately $800 every two
weeks. Her husband is in the construction business and makes between $40,000 and $50,000 per
4
annum. Earlier in 2007, he was unemployed for a period which added to the financial problems but
he is now fully employed. The family expenses and payment obligations are modest, and they are
able to resolve the legitimate outstanding delinquent debts.
Applicant is highly regarded for her work skills and especially her manner of dealing with
military personnel who have difficulties in collecting from insurance (Exh. C 4). She  has an
associate degree from a community college. 
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.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 527 (1988). In Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, § 3.1(b) (August 4,
1995), the President provided that eligibility for access to classified information shall be granted only
to United States citizens “whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to
the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound
judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness
and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified
information.”
To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in DoD 5200.2-R. “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.” DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C6.1.1.1. Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets
forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline. 
“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.” DoD 5200.2-R,
Appendix 8. An administrative judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and
carefully weigh the available, reliable information about the person. Id. An administrative judge
should consider the following 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. Id.  
DoD contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in DoD Directive
5220.6 before any final unfavorable access determination may be made. DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C8.2.1.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
5
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.
Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive, ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden
of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 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. The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations. 
A person granted access to sensitive information enters into a special relationship with the
government. The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to sensitive information. The decision to deny an individual a
security clearance or a trustworthiness determination is not a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant. Exec. Ord. 10865, § 7. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict
guidelines the President has established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s delinquent debts cited in the SOR prompted the allegation of a security concern
under Guideline F of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG), since an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds (AG ¶ 18).
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not
meeting financial obligations (AG ¶ 19 c), or evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts
(AG ¶ 19 a). The financial situation of Applicant warranted the security concerns stated in the
Guidelines. 
Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the conditions that resulted in the behavior
were largely beyond the person’s control (AG ¶ 20 b), and there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control (AG ¶ 20 c). I am confident Applicant has taken
sufficient steps to resolve the debts and will follow through on the remainder since she is aware of
the possible jeopardy to her job and wants very much to avoid losing it. The unemployment and
under-employment of Applicant and her husband, as well as the failure of her former husband to
make child support payments justifies a conclusion that her financial situation was beyond her
control. Since this case arose, she has undertaken the effort to contact her creditors, establish
payment plans when she could, and make payments on many of  them. Several payments began over
a year ago and she completed the effort to contact creditors, make agreements with them, and begin
payments in the last 90 days. Thus, both mitigating conditions are applicable. 
The Government established the allegation under Guideline E Personal Conduct alleged in
the SOR. The alleged false statement on her SF 85 P raised issues that might indicate questionable
judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate
that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. (AG ¶ 15) The specific condition
6
applicable to this case is deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant
and material matters to an investigator, or other official representative could raise a security concern
and be disqualifying (AG ¶ 16 b.). 
The false answer of Applicant must also have been deliberate according to the guideline.
Applicant presented a credible case of the circumstances of the erroneous information. When a
falsification allegation is controverted, the government has the burden of proving it since the proof
of omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when
the omission occurred. The record evidence as a whole must be analyzed to determine whether there
is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning intent or state of mind at the time the omission
occurred. Considering the evidence in the record, I conclude that the error was inadvertent and not
deliberate. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to sensitive  information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the process for adjudicating trustworthiness determinations is the
fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to
sensitive information. The “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the
totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis. 
Applicant impressed me at the hearing as a competent person who is hard-working and
diligent. She is grateful to be employed in a job where she is appreciated for her work. Her
delinquent debts accumulated as a result of matters largely beyond her control, but now that she is
employed she is seeking to remedy them and has made significant progress in doing so. I believe
she is trustworthy and has shown her good faith in pursuing the resolution of the debts. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the
whole person of Applicant, I conclude in favor of the grant of a trustworthiness determination.
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: 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
7
Subparagraph 1.j.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l.: 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
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant 
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a trustworthy determination for Applicant. Clearance
is granted. 
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge