DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
   
   
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-03446 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: James F. Duffy, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has 13 past due accounts totaling approximately $24,000. None of the 
debts have been paid nor is there an arrangement to pay these debts. Applicant failed 
to mitigate the financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns. 
Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 
 
 
1
 On June 22, 2007, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Public Trust 
Position (SF 85P). On August 26, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness concerns 
under Guideline F, financial considerations, based on a history of financial problems as 
evicenced by delinquent debts, and Guideline E, personal conduct, for falsified material 
on his SF 85P. 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) 
 
 
 
2
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.  
  
 On September 19, 2008, Applicant’s answer to the SOR was received. In his 
answer, Applicant elected to have the matter decided without a hearing. Department 
Counsel submitted the government's case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated 
December 29, 2008. The FORM contained 10 attachments. On January 6, 2009, 
Applicant received a copy of the FORM, along with notice of his opportunity to file 
objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the potentially 
disqualifying conditions.  
 
 Responses to the FORM are due 30 days after receipt of the FORM. Applicant’s 
response was due on February 5, 2009. As of February 26, 2009, no response had 
been received. On March 3, 2009, I was assigned the case.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied a $2,431 telephone company debt (¶ 
1.b), the $767 debt (¶ 1.g), and the falsification listed in ¶ 2.a. He admitted the 
remaining allegations. 
 
 Applicant is a 21-year-old employee seeking to occupy a Public Trust Position in 
support of a contract with the Department of Defense. Neither Applicant’s duty position 
nor the nature of the contract are known from the record as submitted. Applicant is 
seeking to obtain accesses to sensitive information. 
 
 Applicant owes 13 debts which total $23,911. There is no evidence of any 
payment on these debts. The majority of these accounts were opened in July and 
August 2006 when Applicant was working for a motel/hotel chain. In August 2006, 
Applicant returned to school and also obtained a job as an office assistant. (Item 5) 
 
The debts in ¶ 1.a, ($357) and ¶ 1.b, ($2,431) are two telephone accounts 
opened in July 2006, which have been charged off. Applicant admits owing the first 
debt, but not the second. In June 2008, in his response to written interrogatories (Item 
6), Applicant stated he had to look into the second debt because he was only aware of 
the first debt. Both debts appear on Applicant’s June 2007, February 2008, and August 
2008 credit bureau reports (CBR). (Items 7, 8, 9) In June 2008, when Applicant 
responded to the written interrogatories (Item 6) he stated, with regard to the smaller 
phone bill, he “should be able to resolve this debt within the next few months.”  
 
 The debt in ¶ 1.c ($887) was a credit card debt opened in June 2006. The CBR 
indicates the first payment on this debt was never received. (Item 9) The debt in ¶ 1.d 
($321) was a chain store debt opened in July 2006. In response to the interrogatories, 
Applicant stated he had received a payoff agreement with the creditor and intended to 
 
 
 
3
pay the debt in full. The debt in ¶ 1.e ($410) was a credit card debt opened in August 
2006.  
 
 The debt in ¶ 1.f ($9,757) was a credit union account opened in July 2006 for an 
automobile. High credit was $12,840 with a 63 month repayment plan. The debt in ¶ 1.g 
($767) was an account opened in August 2006 with terms of repayment of $37 per 
month. Applicant denies this debt because he does not recognize it. The debt in ¶ 1.h 
($754) was a credit card account. In response to the interrogatories, Applicant stated he 
planned to pay this debt.  
 
 The debt in ¶ 1.i ($717) was a bank debt which Applicant stated in June 2008 he 
planned to pay by the end of the year. (Item 6) This is the only debt which does not 
appear in his CBRs. All the other debts listed in the SOR appear in all three of his 
CBRs.  
 
The debt in ¶ 1.j ($1,750) was a student loan taken out in August 2006. High 
credit was $3,500. As of the date of Applicant’s June 2007 CBR, this debt was being 
“paid as agreed.” (Item 9) The final two debts ¶ 1.k ($2,821) and ¶ 1.l ($2,939) were 
student loans taken out in October 2005. Repayment on the loans were $30 and $31 
per month. (Item 9) In June 2008, when Applicant responded to the interrogatories, he 
stated he had received payment information three weeks prior and intended to start 
making payment on these loans.  
  
In June 2007, Applicant executed a SF 85P, which him asked in question 22.b if 
he was currently more than 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation. He 
answered “no” to the question. He did not explain why he answered no when he had the 
previously listed delinquent debts.  
 
Applicant’s gross income is $1,608 per month and his take home pay is $1,296. 
His rent is only $125 per month, his car expenses are $646, and his other expenses 
total $320. His monthly expenses total $1,091, which leaves $205 each month for all 
other expenses. Applicant has $652 of monthly debt repayment including insurance, 
phone service, and car payment. (Item 6) Applicant monthly disposable income (gross 
income less deductions, expenses, and debt payment) is a negative $447. This amount 
does not include any amounts for student loan repayment or repayment on any of the 
other debts listed in the SOR.  
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 
 
 
 
4
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 
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. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in 
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty 
of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple 
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Revised Adjudicative (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
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. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding 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 his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
upon terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an 
applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk 
that is inconsistent with holding a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances so as to meet his financial obligations. 
 
 The record evidence supports a conclusion Applicant has a history of financial 
problems. Applicant owes 13 debts which have been charged off, the accounts closed, 
or are delinquent, which total approximately $24,000. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and AG ¶19(c), “a history of not 
meeting financial obligations,” apply.  
 
 Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶¶ 20(a) – (e) are 
potentially applicable: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
 
 
 
6
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(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. 
 
None of the mitigating factors apply. The behavior did not happen long ago. The 
accounts were opened in 2005 and 2006 and remain unpaid. There are 13 debts, so the 
behavior is not infrequent. There is no evidence the obligations were incurred under 
unusual circumstances. The debts appear to be credit card debt, student loans, a car 
purchase, telephone bills, and other bank accounts. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.  
 
There is no evidence of divorce, separation, periods of unemployment, or 
unexpected medical expenses, or other evidence that Applicant’s financial problems 
were beyond his control. AG & 20(b) does not apply. AG & 20(c) and & 20(d) do not 
apply. There is no evidence Applicant has received financial counseling or that his 
financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Applicant’s monthly 
expenses exceed his monthly income by more than $400. There is no evidence of a 
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant has denied two of the debts, but provided no documented proof to 
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the 
issue. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply.  
 
Personal Conduct  
 
The Directive sets out various factors relevant to an applicant=s personal conduct 
that may be potentially disqualifying. Paragraph 15 of the Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 
states a concern where there is conduct “involving questionable judgment, lack of 
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise 
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified 
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers 
during the eligibility for access to sensitive information process or any other failure to 
cooperate with the eligibility for access to sensitive information process.” 
 
Under 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 eligibility for access to sensitive information eligibility or 
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities” and & 16 (b) “deliberately providing 
false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, 
 
 
 
7
security official, competent medical authority, or other official government 
representative” are security concerns. 
 
Applicant failed to list his delinquent debts on his SF 85P. In June 2008, in the 
written interrogatories Applicant acknowledged all but two of the debts. He denies 
falsifying his SF 85P, but the clear and plain language of the question asked if he was 
currently more than 180 days delinquent on any debt. He was delinquent and failed to 
so indicate. He has provided no explanation as to his incorrect answer.  
 
Because Applicant chose to have this matter handled administratively, I am 
unable to evaluate his demeanor, appearance, or form a positive determination as to his 
truthfulness. From the record, I am unable to find Applicant was sincere, open, and 
honest. 
 
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) the 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.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a young man, only 21 
years old. He has made some mistakes in the past by becoming overextended 
financially and unable to repay his obligations in a timely manner. Even now, his 
monthly expenses exceed his income by $400 or more per month. In June 2008, when 
he answered the interrogatories, Applicant was made aware of the government’s 
concerns about his unpaid obligations. Eight months later, there is no evidence 
Applicant has made a payment on any of his debts. Additionally, he failed to explain 
why he did not list his delinquent debts when asked about them on his SF 85P.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
 
 
 
8
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial 
considerations and personal conduct.  
 
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot 
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to justify the award 
of a security clearance. The awarding of a security clearance is not a once in a life time 
occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to 
the evidence presented. Under Applicant=s current circumstances a clearance is not 
recommended, but should Applicant be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a security 
clearance in the future, having paid the delinquent obligations, established compliance 
with a repayment plan, or otherwise addressed the obligations, he may well 
demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security worthiness. However, a clearance at 
this time is not warranted.  
 
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, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a – 1.l:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   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. 
 
 
_________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge