Applicant’s initial answer was incomplete and undated. The government allowed her additional time to amend1
it.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ADP Case No. 06-22360
SSN: ------------ )
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Edmunds, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On June 22, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines F and E. The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on October 3, 2007.  She admitted SOR1
subparagraphs 1.f, 1.j, and 1.m, denied the remainder, and requested a hearing. I
received the case assignment on December 6, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on January 11, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on January 29, 2008.
All had serious ear, nose and throat problems as toddlers that required, among other things,  tonsilectomies,2
ear tube insertions, and adenoid removal (Tr. 51).
Among other things, the dashboard fell off (Exhibit 4 at 4).3
2
During the hearing, I received six government exhibits, three Applicant exhibits, and
Applicant’s testimony. At the close of the hearing, I left the record open at Applicant’s
request to allow her to submit additional documents. Within the time allotted, she
submitted two additional exhibits. The government had no objections to their
admissibility, and I incorporated them into the record. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on February 14, 2008. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to a sensitive position is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old married woman with three children ages 11, 5, and 2.
She has a high school education. Since September 2005, she has worked for a health
insurance company as a claims analyst. According to her employer, she “meets quality
standards consistently” (Exhibit 3 at 4).
Between 2002 and 2007, Applicant accrued 14 delinquent debts in the
approximate amount of $23,800. Ten, totalling approximately $3,900 (SOR
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c through1.e, 1.g through 1.i, 1.k, 1.l, and 1.n), are insurance
copayments incurred for her children’s medical care  (Tr. 25-26, 44). She initially denied2
these bills. After the SOR’s issuance, she contacted the hospital where her family had
received medical treatment over the years. She discovered that the hospital had
erroneously listed these bills in her 5-year old son’s name instead of hers (Exhibit E). In
early 2008, after the hospital corrected the discrepancy, she arranged a payment plan
consisting of $50 monthly payments (Tr. 44). She has made one payment so far (Tr.
25).
Applicant owes $449 to the remaining medical creditor (SOR subparagraph 1.b).
She does not recognize the creditor. Recently, she attempted to ascertain whether she
owed the debt to the hospital where her family had received medical treatment over the
years. The hospital had no record of this bill (Exhibit E).
The SOR alleges another medical delinquency (subparagraph 1.o). It does not
identify a specific creditor, and Applicant denied it.
Applicant purchased a used car in May 2002 (Exhibit 3 at 4). Shortly thereafter,
she began experiencing an unusual amount of maintenance problems  (Tr. 21). She3
then returned it to the dealer who provided her with another car (Id.). It was Applicant’s
understanding that the car loan would remain the same. She drove the replacement for
two years, making steady loan payments.
3
In September 2004, Applicant was laid off, and was unemployed through August
2005 (Exhibit 1 at 3). Because she was unable to afford car payments, she voluntarily
arranged for it to be repossessed (Tr. 33, Exhibit 3 at 3). The dealer then resold it,
leaving an approximately $8,500 deficiency (Answer to SOR Subparagraph 2.j, Tr. 21). 
In June 2006, the loan company of the car Applicant had returned to the dealer in
2002 informed her that she owed $8,800 (SOR subparagraph 1.f, Exhibit 4 at 4).
Applicant told the creditor about the 2002 transaction with the dealer, and asserted she
had no responsibility to pay for it. The creditor continued to contend that she owed the
debt. During a 2006 meeting with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), Applicant said she was going to retain an attorney to resolve this
disputed account (Id.). There is no record evidence of her either retaining an attorney or
taking any other steps to resolve it.
In 1998, Applicant opened a credit card account with a department store. She
used it to purchase children’s clothing. It grew delinquent in approximately September
2004 after she was laid off. By January 2007 she owed approximately $2,900. She then
arranged a payment plan consisting of $50 monthly payments. She made the first in
February 2007 (Exhibit 3 at 9). After approximately five months, she stopped making
payments because she got behind on other bills (Tr.53).
Applicant and her husband have been separated “off and on” (Tr. 55) for several
years. Currently, they have been apart for two months. His financial contribution to the
family has been sporadic (Id.).
Applicant completed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P) in
September 2005. She answered “no” to Question 22 requiring her to list any
delinquencies 180 or more days overdue when the application was completed.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability to have access to sensitive information,
the administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In
addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines
list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
4
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable decision. 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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, [or] trustworthiness . . . ” (AG ¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual
who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds” (Id.).
Applicant’s financial problems trigger the applicability of AG & 19(a), “an inability
or unwillingness to satisfy debts,@ AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial
obligations,” and AG ¶ 19(e), “consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be
indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis” apply.
Applicant’s debts did not become delinquent until after she was laid off in 2004.
She arranged payment plans for the credit card, and nearly all of the medical bills. She
also arranged for her car to be voluntarily repossessed when she realized she would not
be able to afford payments. AG ¶ 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,” applies.
Applicant was unable to adhere to the credit card payment plan. Also, she has
only been making payments toward the satisfaction of the consolidated hospital
delinquency bill for one month, and has not developed a plan to satisfy the deficiency
resulting from the 2004 voluntary repossession of her car. Consequently, it is too soon
to ascertain whether her financial problems are under control. AG ¶ 20(c ), “. . . there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” does not
apply. 
Applicant’s failure to get her finances under control does not diminish the
sincerity of her efforts. Her ability to make further progress was hampered by the lack of
a consistent contribution from her husband. Therefore, although her efforts were
unsuccessful, I conclude they were in good-faith. AG ¶ 20 (d), “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” applies.
Applicant disputes SOR subparagraph 1.f relating to an alleged deficiency from a
repossession in 2002. She returned the vehicle to the dealer only after discovering
major defects shortly after she purchased it. She reasonably believed that she was no
longer responsible for the loan payments on the lemon vehicle after she returned it to
5
the dealer, and began making payments on the car she received in exchange.
Nevertheless, she did not provide any documented proof to substantiate the basis of
this dispute, nor any evidence of actions to resolve the issue. AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual
has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause
of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute
or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” does not apply. 
The government’s allegation, listed in SOR subparagraph 1.o, that Applicant
owes “a medical provider” $137, without identifying the creditor, is vague and
overbroad. I conclude it does not generate a security concern. 
Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability [and] trustworthiness . . .” Here, Applicant’s SF 85P
omissions raise the issue of whether AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities,” applies. 
Applicant’s explanation that she was unaware of the debts listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c through1.e, 1.g through 1.i, 1.k, 1.l, and 1.n is credible in light of
the creditor’s admitted billing discrepancy. I conclude the omission of these debts do not
constitute falsifications.
I conclude Applicant’s explanation that she was unaware of the delinquency
listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b when she completed the SF 85P was credible in light of
the evidence she provided documenting her efforts at identifying it. She did not falsify
SOR subparagraph 1.b.
Applicant disputes the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.f. Consequently, she
did not falsify the SF 85P by not listing it.
The government did not prove that Applicant’s car note, as referenced in SOR
subparagraph 1.j, had been delinquent for 180 days when she arranged for the car’s
voluntary repossession. I conclude that its omission from the SF 85P does not
constitute a falsification. 
Applicant’s 11-month unemployment immediately preceded her stint with her
current employer. She completed the SF 85P within one week of being hired. Given her
testimony that she lost control of her debts during the layoff, it is not credible that she
would forget the credit card delinquency when completing the SF 85P. I conclude her
omission of the delinquency listed in SOR subparagraph 1.m constitutes a falsification,
and that AG ¶ 16 (a) applies without mitigation.
6
Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” Applicant’s falsification on her SF 85P was a one-time,
technical violation of criminal law. It is not indicative of any broader propensity toward
criminal behavior. Consequently, she has mitigated the criminal conduct security
concern.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(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) extent to which participation
is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent
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.”
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept.
Applicant’s delinquencies were caused by circumstances beyond her control.
Although she has made sincere efforts to satisfy them, the overwhelming majority are
still outstanding, and I am not persuaded that she will be able to adhere to a long-term
debt repayment plan. 
Applicant’s judgment and reliability are further called into question by her
falsification of her SF 85P. Upon considering the applicable disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of the whole person concept, I conclude Applicant’s eligibility for
access to a sensitive position must be denied.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for occupying a
sensitive position. Eligibility is denied.
                                             
_________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge