DATE:  December 31, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18900
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ROGER C. WESLEY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Edmunds, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of delinquent debts that stem mostly from a car repossession,
restitution that was court-ordered in connection with an alcohol-related conviction, and medical
debts associated with a series of hospitalizations in which she had difficulties making the co-pay
requirements of her health insurance.  Applicant disputes most of the debts, and all but the judgment
debt and ordered restitution appeared to be barred by the controlling statute of limitations in any
case.  Applicant establishes both extenuation and mitigation with respect to the financial concerns
associated with her debts.  Favorable conclusions are warranted with respect to raised financial and
criminal conduct concerns.  Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is granted
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2
On March 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, and Department of
Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2-R, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, which
detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative determination of Applicant
eligibility for occupying an ADP I/II/III position, and recommended referral to an administrative
judge to determine whether a trustworthiness determination clearance should be granted, continued,
denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR on April 17, 2007, and requested a hearing.  The case was
assigned to me on September 20, 2007, and was scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2007.  A
hearing was convened on November 1, 2007, for the purpose of considering whether it would be
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant, continue, deny, or revoke Applicant’s
application for a public trust position.  At hearing, the Government's case consisted of eight exhibits.
Applicant relied on one witness (herself) and no exhibits.  The transcript (R.T.) was received on
November 9, 2007.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
In July 2007,  Department counsel moved to amend the SOR to add three additional
allegations under Guideline J.  Specifically, Department counsel requested leave to add allegations
that Applicant (a) was arrested for driving under the influence (DuI) and endangerment in January
2000, for which she was convicted, sentenced to probation, and ordered $9,381.00 in restitution and
$2,342.50 in fees, (b) was arrested in March 2004 for violating the terms of her probation, for which
the court reinstated and extended her probationary period by three years, and ordered her to complete
a community service requirement, pay restitution, and attend an alcohol education class, and ©) is
currently on probation due to her still outstanding restitution. 
Applicant did not object to Department Counsel’s motion to amend, and for good cause
shown, Department Counsel’s amendment motion was granted.   Asked how she wished to plead to
the amended allegations, Applicant admitted them. 
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Under Guideline F, Applicant is alleged to have incurred numerous delinquent debts: She is
alleged to have incurred one judgment for $1,200.00 and 11 delinquent debts altogether, which
exceed $27,000.00 in total.  
For her response to the SOR,  Applicant admitted two of the debt-related allegations (i.e., the
judgment and deficiency related to an auto repossession), but denied the remaining allegations
without explanations (save for claiming some monies were paid on the listed judgment).  
FINDINGS OF FACT
3
Applicant is a 40-year-old office assistant of a defense contractor who seeks a trustworthiness
determination.  The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted to by Applicant are incorporated
herein by reference and adopted as relevant and material findings.  Additional findings follow.
Applicant has approximately two years of college training and has worked for her current
employer since September 2004 (ex. 1; R.T., at 55), save for an extended period of disability that
included multiple hospital admissions, including three this year alone (R.T., at 59).  She estimates
to have received disability payments of around 50 per cent of her salary while out of work on
disability in 2007 (RT., at 59).  
Since 2000, Applicant has accumulated a number of debts,  most of them medical-related.
She has encountered difficulties in tracking down some of the medical debts with credit reporting
agencies and medical providers and cannot identify them by name (see ex. 8: R.T., at 31).  One of
her larger medical bills is the $9,362.00 hospital debt covered by creditor 1.b, with whom she was
employed at the time of her hospitalization.  Believing this hospital debt was covered by insurance,
she has not been able to make any headway in eliciting debt details with the collection agency
holding this debt (see ex. A; R.T., at 33-38).  Her most recent e-mail and telephone exchanges with
the creditor have yielded no results, and the status of this debt remains unclear.  Considering that she
was employed by this hospital at the time of her hospitalization, her understanding that her hospital
stay was insurance covered I is plausible.  The debt is much too large to attribute solely to a missed
co-payment.   Her dispute of this debt is at the very least entitled to an inference of good faith
questioning of the debt of creditor 1.b.  
Applicant questions, too the other medical debts listed in the SOR.  They are relatively small
in amounts and may very well represent missed co-pays.  As with her creditor 1.b debt, she has had
no success in obtaining financial information from these listed creditors with medically-related debts.
Without information about these debts she cannot affirm whether they are legitimate or not.  
                                                                                                                                              
Besides her medical debts, Applicant is indebted to a landlord on an apartment she rented in
1999 from a co-worker on a month-to-month basis for about two months time.  This landlord
(Creditor 1.a) obtained a judgment against her in October 1999 in the sum of $1,411.00 (R.T., at 56).
Applicant is certain she paid some of the judgment in 2001 through garnishment while employed for
creditor 1.b (ex. 8),  but can provide no documentation (R.T., at 56-57).  She estimates to owe maybe
half of the judgment (R.T.,at  56), but has received no correspondence of any kind from the judgment
holder.
Applicant’s largest debt, by far,  is a deficiency balance on a car she purchased in 1999 for
about $24,000.00 (R.T., at 45-46).  She made monthly payments of around $500.00 on the car for
about six months before defaulting in her payments (see ex. 8).  The car was repossessed in 2001 and
reportedly sold at public auction.  After being advised by the creditor of a $17,000.00 deficiency
balance, she made payment arrangements with the creditor and made one payment before suspending
payments altogether (ex. 8).  She does not know whether the $16,000.00 figure listed in her credit
report is correct or not (R.T., at 47-48).  Without more information about the condition of the car and
sale documentation from the lender, it is not possible to assess whether or not Applicant was
adequately credited by the lender. 
4
Applicant attributes most of her debts to a rough period between 2000 and 2004 when she
was unhappy at work, drinking a lot, and experiencing medical issues requiring hospitalization (see
ex. 8).  Her work and medical problems were compounded by a January 2000 accident she was
involved in while driving a rental car (R.T., at 62).  She had been drinking prior to her accident, and
hit a pole beside the highway (see ex. 8).  An ambulance arrived at the scene and transported he to
a local hospital. While in the hospital, a sheriff’s officer came to the hospital and took a blood
sample (ex. 8).    She was subsequently charged with one count of driving under the influence (DuI)
and three counts of endangerment (a class 6 felony).  In court, she was convicted of all the charges
and sentenced to probation and ordered to pay $9,362.00 in restitution for the damage caused to the
rental car (not insured) and $2,342.50 in fees. 
Applicant did not initially report to her probation department as ordered by the court, and was
she was arrested (in March 2004) for failing complete all of the terms of her probation (see exs. 7
and 8; R.T., at 64-65).  At hearing, the court reinstated and extended her probationary period by three
years (i.e., to April 2007) and ordered her to complete a community service requirement, pay
restitution, and attend an alcohol class.  Because of a remaining restitution balance in April 2007
(estimated to be about $9,000.00), the court extended her probation for an additional three years (see
ex. 7; R.T., at 64-65).  Applicant’s probation officer describes her as compliant with her probation
conditions.  She credits her with making restitution payments and maintaining full-time employment
and a stable residence (ex. 7).  Applicant currently sends her probation department something every
month on her restitution balance (see ex. 7; R.T., at 66).  She does not know what will happen if at
the end of the remaining three years of her probation, she has still not discharged the remaining
restitution balance (R.T., at 67). 
Applicant disputes each of the listed medical debts, which she believes should have been
discharged long ago by her medical insurance.  She is barely able to pay her current bills with her
current take home pay (estimated to be around $1,700.00) and living expenses (see exs. 2 and 8;
R.T., at 60-61), and is considering bankruptcy. 
Not much is known about Applicant’s work performance or trust and confidence in which
she is held by her supervisors and coworkers. She did not provide any documentation of her
performance evaluations, character references, or achievement certificates. 
POLICIES
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Program Office (CHCSPO), the Defense Office
of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communication and Intelligence (ASDC31), entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
which gave DOHA responsibility to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel
working on unclassified Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R.
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information (effective September 2006) list Guidelines to be considered by judges in the decision
making process covering DOHA cases.  These Guidelines require the judge to consider all of the
"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying” (Disqualifying
Conditions), if any, and all of the "Mitigating Conditions," if any, before deciding whether or not a
5
security clearance should be granted, continued or denied.  The Guidelines do not require the judge
to assess these factors exclusively in arriving at a decision.  In addition to the relevant Adjudicative
Guidelines, judges must take into account the pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and
mitigation set forth in E2.2.2 of the Adjudicative Process of Enclosure 2 of the Directive, which are
intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial common sense decision.
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following adjudication policy factors
are pertinent herein:
Financial Considerations
The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk at having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.  Unexplained influence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable
criminal acts.
Criminal Conduct
The Concern.  Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness.  By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply
with laws, rules and regulations.
Burden of Proof
By virtue of the precepts framed by the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an
Applicant's application for a trustworthiness determination may be made only upon a threshold
finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.  Because the Directive requires
Administrative Judges to make a common sense appraisal of the evidence accumulated in the record,
the ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position depends, in large
part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence.  As with all adversary proceedings, the Judge
may draw only those inferences which have a reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of
record.  Conversely, the Judge cannot draw factual inferences that are grounded on speculation or
conjecture.
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) It must prove any controverted fact[s] alleged
in the Statement of Reasons and (2) it must demonstrate that the facts proven have a material bearing
to the applicant's eligibility to obtain an ADP I/II/III position.  The required showing of material
bearing, however, does not require the Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant
has actually abused a trust relationship before it can deny or revoke a trustworthiness determination.
Rather, consideration must take account of cognizable risks that an applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to adhere to principles of trust.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted or
controverted facts, the evidentiary burden shifts to the applicant to establish his or her
trustworthiness  through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation of the Government's case.
CONCLUSIONS
6
Applicant is an assistant for a defense contractor who had one judgment taken against her and
accumulated medically-related delinquent debts she attributes to co-pay issues, a significant
deficiency associated with a car repossession, and her continued probation status stemming from an
alcohol-related incident in which she was convicted, ordered to pay significant restitution, and placed
on probation (twice since renewed due to her failure to comply with her original probation terms).
With the limited resources available to her, she has been able to keep up with her current
household expenses and debts (including he court-ordered restitution)  but not much more.  She has
heard nothing from her old creditors in many years and is not the subject of any known collection
action on her debts.  More recent efforts to elicit information from her largest medical creditor
(creditor 1.b) have been unsuccessful.
Applicant’s finances
Security concerns are raised under the financial considerations guideline of the Adjudicative
Guidelines where the individual applicant is so financially overextended that he or she is at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  Applicant’s accumulation of delinquent debts,
which heretofore she has not been in a position to address, warrant the application of two of the
disqualifying conditions (DC) of the Adjudicative Guidelines for financial considerations: and DC
19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and DC 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations).
Extenuating circumstances are associated with Applicant’s lack of sufficient income to
address many of her old debts, most of which she continues to dispute.   Due to her periods of
unemployment and personal difficulties between 2000 and 2004 associated with her extended
periods of disability, and more recently, her relatively low levels of compensation generated  from
her current work, she has not been able to make much headway in addressing any of her debts
(disputed or otherwise).  MC 20(b) of the financial considerations guideline  (the conditions that
resulted in the behavior 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 responsibility) has some applicability to Applicant’ situation.  Albeit, some
judgment problems persist over the amount she expended (with the help of her boyfriend) on a late
model car in 1999 without the available resources to sustain her agreed monthly payments, and more
over the still outstanding  restitution she was court-ordered to make following her DuI/Endangerment
conviction in January 2000.
Because of the limited income available to Applicant over the past six years, she has not
heretofore been in a position to address her old debts (disputed or otherwise).  Most of Applicant’s
listed debts appear to have been placed in collection before 2002, and are likely barred by Arizona’s
controlling statute of limitations.  The only clear exceptions are the judgment debt and the court-
ordered restitution debt, both of which have only been partially addressed by Applicant to date.
None of Applicant’s listed medical and consumer debts reflect any collection action by the individual
creditors involved.   Based on this record, most of Applicant’s covered debts appear to be barred
from collection by the pertinent six-year statute of limitation in Arizona.  See §12-548 of A.R.S.
(2007).  
7
Statutes of limitation, while considered important policy tools for discouraging plaintiffs
from pursuing stale claims and promoting finality in litigation, have never been equated with good-
faith efforts to repay overdue creditors.  See, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 02-30304, at 3 (App. Bd. April
2004)(quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020, at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 2001).   Still, they provide effective
collection barriers and, like bankruptcy, serve to insulate the debtor from pressures to raise cash to
satisfy his or her creditors.
To be sure, Applicant does not assert relevant statutes of limitation in Arizona in her defense.
With her limited income she has had difficulty making individual or collective progress (such as use
of debt consolidation) on her listed debts.  At this time it is not clear what steps Applicant might
consider in the foreseeable future, if any, to resolve her mostly disputed and time barred debts.  If
these covered creditors are not willing or in a position to detail the bases of the debts, it is unlikely
they have any future interest in pursuing them.  While she has not sought financial counseling or
initiated constructive steps (such as petitioning for bankruptcy) to discharge or otherwise resolve her
debts, she is currently legally insulated from any collection action by the applicable Arizona statute
of limitation, and for all practicable purposes, is no longer at risk to having to raise large sums of
money to resolve her debts.  
Holding a favorable trustworthiness determination involves the exercise of important fiducial
responsibilities, among which is the expectancy of consistent trust and candor.   Financial stability
in a person cleared to access information covered by privacy rights is required precisely to inspire
trust and confidence in the holder of the trustworthiness determination. 
Taking into account all of the extenuating facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s
debt accumulations, the limited resources she has had to address them with, and the statute of
limitation protections now available to her,  she mitigates trustworthiness concerns related to her
debts.  Favorable conclusions warrant with respect to the allegations covered by the financial
considerations guideline.
Applicant’s DuI/Endangerment offense and her probationary status
While Applicant has no prior history of criminal activity that could raise questions about her
judgment and trustworthiness, her 2000 DuI/Endangerment conviction does prompt concerns about
her ability to comply with court orders.  Her ordered probation in 2000 included a $9,381.00
restitution condition that Applicant was unable to satisfy.  Her failure to satisfy the probation
reporting, community service, and restitution requirements prompted the court to extend her probation
for three years (to April 2004).  And because of her still unsatisfied restitution, the court extended her
probation once more in 2007. At this time, she remains on probation, albeit compliant in her
probation requirements.  Because of this still outstanding restitution condition, trustworthy concerns
about her finances are further compounded.
Applicant’s two arrests, each arise out of the same original incident.  Her second arrest in 
2004 for violating her probation is really a compliance issue and is causally related to her problem
finances.  The initial DuI/Endangerment arrest and conviction and ensuing probation extensions
resulting from Applicant’s failure to satisfy the court’s restitution order and resulting probation
extensions are enough to warrant application of DC 31(d) (individual is currently on parole or
8
probation) and DC 31(e) (violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated
rehabilitation program) of the guidelines for criminal conduct.
Because she is still on probation, she is in a difficult position to take advantage of any of the
potentially applicable mitigating conditions of Guideline J.  The underlying incident, however, is
isolated..  Her probation officer credits her with compliance with her probation conditions.  And since
this 2000 offense, she has not committed any other offenses that could subject her to arrest (except
for her arrest for probation violation in 2004).  For this violation, she received extended probation.
She acknowledges poor judgment in the past and pledges to do the best she can in resolving her debts.
Based on this record, some application of MC 32(d) (there is evidence of successful rehabilitation,
including but limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement) is warranted. 
Both from a consideration of the applicable guidelines and from a whole person perspective,
Applicant mitigates concerns stemming strictly from her 2000 arrest/conviction and related probation
violations that ensued based on her failure to satisfy restitution requirements.  Taking  into account
all of the facts and circumstances developed in the record, favorable conclusions warrant with respect
to the allegations covered by subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c of the SOR, as amended at hearing.
In reaching my decision, I have considered the evidence as a whole, including each of the
E2.2 factors enumerated in the Adjudicative Guidelines of the Directive.
FORMAL FINDINGS
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR in the context of the findings of fact, conclusions and
guidelines listed above, I make the following formal findings:
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: FOR APPLICANT
                            S ub-paras. 1.a - 1.l                                     FOR APPLICANT
CRIMINAL CONDUCT: FOR APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2a: FOR APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2.b: FOR APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2.c: FOR APPLICANT
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position.
Eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position is granted. 
Roger C. Wesley
9
Administrative Judge