DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 07-09873 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr. Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted her Questionnaires for Trust Position (SF 85P), on October 
3, 2005.  On March 6, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns for 
financial considerations (Item 1).  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); Department of 
Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, dated Jan. 1987, as 
amended (Regulation), 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on March 11, 2008 (Item 3).  She 
answered the SOR in writing on June 16, 2008.  She admitted the 21 allegations under 
Guideline F.  She noted that seven of the medical debts may have been cocvered by 
medical insurance.  She elected to have the matter decided on the written record in lieu 
of a hearing. (Item 2)  Department counsel submitted the Government’s written case on 
August 12, 2008.  Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on 
August 25, 2008, and was provided the opportunity to file objections, and submit 
1 
 
2 
 
material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions.  Applicant dated 
the receipt for the FORM as August 25, 2007.  Since the FORM was not mailed until 
August 13, 2008, the date is a mistake and it was received by Applicant on August 25, 
2008.  Applicant provided additional information in response to the FORM on 
September 25, 2008.  The case was assigned to me on October 7, 2008.  Based upon a 
review of the case file and pleadings, eligibility for access to sensitive information is 
denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, to 
1.u.  She also noted that allegations 1.i. to 1.o. were medical debts that may fall under 
her health insurance coverage.  In response to the FORM, Applicant provided additional 
information to support her request for eligibility for a public trust position noting that she 
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on July 22, 2008.  She provided the contact information 
for her attorney and the Trustee in Bankruptcy but no other information concerning the 
bankruptcy action (See, Response to FORM, dated September 25, 2008). 
 
 Applicant is a 56-year-old customer service representative for a defense 
contractor.  She was married on September 12, 1995, but is now separated from her 
husband.  She has two children but does not receive child support for the children.  
(Items 5 and 6) 
 
 Applicant’s answer to the SOR (Item 2), her answers to interrogatories (Items 5 
and 6), and credit reports (Items 7, 8, 9) establish that Applicant has delinquent debts, 
totaling approximately $25,000.  The documents support a debt in collection for propane 
for $119 (1.a); a telephone debt in collection for $190 (1.b) a medical debt in collection 
for $120 (1.c); a telephone debt in collection for $40 (1.d); another telephone bill in 
collection for $262 (1.e); a credit card debt charged off as a bad debt for $1,144 (1.f); 
another credit card debt to the same creditor in collection for $1,169 (1.g); a credit 
account in collection for $1,143 (1.h); an account in collection for $262 (1.i); medical 
accounts in collection for the same medical facility for $210 (1.j), $156 (1.k), $2,299 
(1.l), $168 (1.m), $140 (1.n), $140 (1.o), and $171 (1.p); an account charged off for 
$12,343 (1.q); a loan account charged off for $5,354 (1.r); a car repossession in 2003 
(1.s); and a car repossession in 2002 (1.t).  Also noted is a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed 
in 1992 but dismissed because Applicant could not make the required payments (1.u).  
Most accounts were opened after 2000 and started being delinquent in 2001 and 2002.  
The medical debts were accumulated in 2005, 
 
 In answers to interrogatories, Applicant noted that the credit card debts in 
allegations 1.f and 1.g are the same debt (item 5).  It is reasonable to believe that they 
are the same debt.  She also believed the credit limit on the card was only $500.  
Applicant provided no information on any payments made on the account.  She does 
recall using the card for small purchases.  She occasionally receives calls concerning 
the debt.  She stopped making payments on the debt because she could no longer 
afford to make the monthly payments (Item 6 at 3-4).   
 
3 
 
 Applicant did have telephone service with the telephone company in allegations 
1.d and 1.e.  She paid about two monthly bills but had to stop paying because she could 
not afford the high long distance bills (Item 6 at 4).  Applicant also stated she made car 
payments for about two years on two cars, one for her and one for her son.  She could 
not continue the payments so the cars were repossessed (Item 6 at 4). 
 
 Applicant stated the medical debts at allegations 1.i to 1.p were for medical 
procedures she received in 2005.  She had health insurance at the time that should 
have paid part of the medical bills.  She should have only paid a co-payment.  When the 
debts became delinquent, she no longer had the health insurance so the claim could not 
be filed with the insurance company.  Applicant presented no information concerning 
any contact she had with the insurance company.  Applicant stated that she established 
a $20 per month payment plan for the medical debts in April 2007.  She presented no 
information concerning any payments made according to this plan (Item 6).   
 
 Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 1992 but it was dismissed within a 
year because she could not make the required payments.  At the time of her interview 
with security investigators, Applicant stated that her monthly income was about $1,300 
with monthly expenses of about $1,341 leaving a deficit for the month.  She usually 
breaks even each month if she works overtime and at a part-time job.  She admits she 
lives paycheck to paycheck (Item 6 at 5-7). 
 
 Applicant noted that she has not had a lien placed against her property or 
judgment against her for failing to pay taxes or other financial delinquency.  The 
delinquencies are not because of drug or alcohol abuse, or gambling.  She does not 
know of anyone who would question her willingness to pay her debts.  She has never 
received financial counseling.  She want to pay all of her delinquent debts, and she is 
paying what she can afford to pay (Item 6, at 5). 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  
(See Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.)  “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.” (See 
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence 
and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, indicates trustworthiness 
adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense Security Service 
and Office of Personnel Management.  Department of Defense contractor personnel are 
afforded the right to the procedures contained in the Directive before any final 
unfavorable access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)   
 
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the 
Administrative Judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the 
AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
4 
 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious 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. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
[sensitive] information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
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, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The 
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable 
trustworthiness decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
sensitive information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
There is a security concern for a failure or inability to live within one=s means, 
satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations indicating 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 sensitive 
information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage 
in illegal acts to generate funds (AG ¶ 18).  Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligation to 
protect classified information.  Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life 
provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
 
 A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
5 
 
terms.  Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an Applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance.  An Applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations.  Applicant’s delinquent debts from credit cards, medical debts, loans, 
telephone bills, as established by credit reports and Applicant’s admissions, are a 
security concern raising Financial Consideration Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 
¶19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations).  Applicant has significant delinquent debts that she has 
not addressed or resolved.   
 
 I have considered a number of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 
(FC MC).  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) does not apply.  
While the debts may have been incurred in the past, they are still unpaid and thus 
current.  There are a number of different accounts and debts, so the debts were not 
incurred infrequently.  Although she is a single mother, she has not established that 
delinquent debts would not recur.  The continued debts and financial situation cast 
doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problems 
were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separations) and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances).  Applicant has not presented any 
information to establish circumstances prevented her from changing her situation 
enabling her to pay debts.  She stated that some of the medical debts should have been 
paid by her health insurance.  However, she presented no information to show any 
inquiry of the insurance company or any attempt to have them pay the debts.   
 
 Applicant stated that she has not received financial counseling so FC MC ¶ 20(a) 
(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) does not apply.  
Except for her statement that she is paying $20 monthly towards medical bills and that 
she recently filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she has not presented any information to 
show she is making arrangements to pay her creditors.  There is no clear indication that 
the problem is being resolved.   
 
 FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply.  Applicant's response to 
the FORM states that she filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on July 23, 2008.  She 
listed the name of her attorney and the Trustee in Bankruptcy.  However, she presented 
no other information concerning the filing or the status of the planned payments.  While 
bankruptcy is a legal and permissible means of resolving debts, her information is not 
sufficient to show that she has made a good-faith effort to pay her debts.  She stated 
she is paying $20 monthly towards her medical debts but presented no information to 
6 
 
establish the payments.  Applicant has not presented sufficient information to mitigate 
security concerns for financial considerations. 
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position 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 public trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon 
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  Applicant has not presented 
sufficient information to show she has taken sufficient action to resolve her financial 
issues.  She noted that she recently filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  She did not 
present any information on the payment plan under the bankruptcy or any payments 
made according to the plan.  When she filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 1992, it was 
dismissed because she could not make the required payments.  With this history, 
Applicant's promise to pay her debts in the future is not sufficient to mitigate security 
concerns.  She has not presented a consistent record of actions to resolve financial 
issues.  She has not established that she has taken timely and reasonable steps over 
the years to address her financial problems.  The record shows that she has been 
irresponsible towards her financial obligations indicating she may be unconcerned, 
irresponsible, or careless concerning sensitive information.  Overall, the record 
evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability 
for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated 
the trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial considerations.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   Against Applicant 
7 
 
  Subparagraph 1.e:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.g:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.i:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.jf:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.k:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.l:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.m:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.n:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.o:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.p:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.q:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.r:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.s:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.t:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.u:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position.  Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge