DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-03594 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on 
April 26, 2007.  On November 10, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness 
concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F.  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 January 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 November 25, 2008. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 4, 2008.  She admitted one 
and denied nine of the allegations under Guideline F with detailed explanations.  She 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge.  Department Counsel was prepared 
to proceed on December 31, 2008, and the case was assigned to me on January 5, 
2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on January 8, 2009, for a hearing on February 
5, 2009.  I convened the hearing as scheduled.  The government offered four exhibits, 
1 
 
2 
 
marked Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 4, which were received without 
objection.  Applicant submitted three exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A 
through C, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on her own behalf.  
The record was held open for Applicant to submit additional documents.  Applicant 
timely submitted one document marked App. Ex. D.  Department Counsel had no 
objection to consideration of the documents (Gov. Ex. 5, Memorandum, dated February 
17, 2009), and the document is admitted.  DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the 
hearing on February 19, 2009.  Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, 
and testimony, eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 30-year-old high school graduate with some college credit serving 
as a customer service representative for a defense contractor.  She married on 
November 2, 1996 when she was 18 years old.  She and her husband worked various 
jobs for about a year before his father turned over the family business to him.  Her 
parents provided them with a house that had only a small mortgage.  Applicant and her 
former husband took out a second small mortgage to assist with household and 
business expenses.  Applicant gave birth to their only child in February 1998.  Both 
Applicant and her husband worked in the business but Applicant mainly followed her 
husband's directions on what needed to be done in the business.  She signed whatever 
documents her former husband asked her to sign.  Applicant had a child and started 
working from home.  Unbeknownst to Applicant, her husband was abusing drugs and 
alcohol, using the business assets to pay for his drugs and alcohol.  He also mortgaged 
their house again with a higher mortgage.  She was not aware of this mortgage until she 
received a notice of foreclosure in the mail.  Applicant's husband took care of all of the 
family financial transactions (Tr. 16-17, 23-27; Gov. Ex. 1, Questionnaire for Public 
Trust Position, dated April 26, 2007).  
 
 Applicant separated from her husband in June 2000.  A divorce was granted on 
October 9, 2001, on the grounds of the husband's habitual drunkenness.  Applicant was 
granted custody of the child and her husband received visitation privileges.  Her 
husband was to assume responsibility for most of the debts from the house and the 
mortgage.  Each assumed responsibility for the debts they incurred in their own name.  
Applicant's husband was ordered to pay child support to include arrears.  Applicant was 
responsible for one vehicle.  Her husband filed for bankruptcy shortly after she filed for 
divorce and his debts were discharged.  Applicant did not participate in the bankruptcy 
and did not know about it until informed later by her attorney.  The car Applicant was 
provided in the divorce was included in the husband's bankruptcy petition.  She was told 
by her husband to return the car to the bank holding the loan on the car.  She returned 
the car as directed (Tr. 17-19; See Answer to SOR, Divorce Decree, dated October 23, 
2001; Gov. Ex. 2, Answer to Interrogatories, dated August 21, 2008).   
 
 After the divorce, Applicant moved to be near her parents and was provided a 
house they owned.  She worked hard not to accrue debt.  She did not purchase items 
on time so she did not see any reason to check her credit history or credit report.  
Applicant married her second husband in May 2006.  Her second husband is disabled 
3 
 
from a motorcycle accident and does not work but draws disability.  Applicant had a 
child with her second husband, so she now has two children.  She worked at various 
jobs until she found steady employment in April 2007 with the defense contractor (Tr. 
23-27). 
 
 Applicant is a high producer for her employer.  Her performance is rated above 
average (App. Ex. A, Letter, dated January 7, 2009).  Her productivity results are 
consistently almost more than 200% of the employer's goal (App. Ex. B, Associate 
Productivity Report, Various dates).  She has numerous awards for outstanding 
performance and exceeding standards (App. Ex. C, Award certificates, various months).  
Applicant's manager notes she is a dedicated professional employee with exceptional 
customer service skills.  She can be counted on to work hard and accurately.  She is a 
pleasure to work with. Ten fellow workers and family members wrote letters of reference 
stating that she is a smart, dedicated, hard worker who is trustworthy and reliable (App. 
Ex. A, Letters, various dates).   
 
 Applicant is paid hourly at the rate of $10.05 by her employer.  She does not 
receive overtime.  Her monthly net salary is $1,389.46.  She receives $432 in monthly 
child support.  Her husband receives $558 monthly in disability.  The family's combined 
monthly income is $2,379.  Their monthly recurring expenses are approximately $1,600 
leaving a monthly net remainder in discretionary or disposable funds of approximately 
$600 (Tr. 39-48). 
 
 A credit report (Gov. Ex. 4, dated May 9, 2007) shows the following ten 
delinquent debts listed for Applicant: a credit card debt charged off for $3,838 (SOR 
1.a); a utility debt in collection for $167 (SOR 1.b); a charged off department store 
account for $166 (SOR 1.c); an account charged off for $68 (SOR 1.d); a credit card in 
collection for $2,765 (SOR 1.e); a medical debt in collection for $130 (SOR 1.f); a cell 
phone debt in collection for $1,077 (SOR 1.g); a collection account for a storage 
company for $359 (SOR 1.h); a credit card account in collection for $5,836 (SOR 1.i); 
and a charged off account for a car loan for $8,567 (SOR 1.j).  
 
 Applicant is unaware of a number of the delinquent debts.  She did not become 
aware of the debts until she received the SOR.  She believes the debts were incurred 
by her former husband either without her knowledge or creditors are pursuing her for 
the debts since her former husband's bankruptcy action discharged the debts for him 
leaving her as the only account holder (Tr. 17, 25-27).   
 
 SOR delinquent debt 1.a is for a credit card.  Applicant believes she was placed 
on the credit card by her husband as a co-signer.  She did not have a credit card with 
the creditor in her own name.  She cannot recall what the card was used for, the 
balance, or why it was not paid.  She believes her former husband was the principle 
user of the card and he incurred the debts.  She has not made any payments towards 
this account.  She does not believe the debt is her debt (Tr. 28-29).   
 
 SOR delinquent debt 1.b is a utility debt for the house she and her former 
husband lived in.  After they separated, her husband moved out and she and her son 
4 
 
lived in the house until it was foreclosed.  Her husband was to pay the expenses from 
the house, and the utility service was in his name.  She does not remember a bill from 
the utility company.  She has not made any payments on this bill since she believes it is 
not her debt but her former husband's debt (Tr. 29-30).    
 
 SOR Delinquent SOR 1.c is for a department store account.  Applicant had an 
account with the department store.  When she separated from her former husband, she 
destroyed her credit cards.  At the time, her department store account was at zero 
balance.  She does not know who used the credit card or incurred the debt, but it is not 
her debt (Tr. 30-31).   
 
 SOR delinquent debts 1.d and 1.f are medical debts in collection.  Applicant has 
no knowledge of these debts.  She always had medical insurance or Medicaid. She 
never received correspondence from the creditors or the collection agencies (Tr. 32-34).   
 
 SOR delinquent debts 1.e and 1.i are for credit card debts in collection.  
Applicant never had an account with either of the credit card companies.  She never 
received any information from the creditors or collection companies on these delinquent 
debts.  She believes the debts arose when her former husband opened and used the 
credit cards without her knowledge for his purposes (Tr. 35-37). 
 
 SOR delinquent debt 1.g is for a cell phone bill.  Applicant admits this debt and 
acknowledges that she incurred a debt of about $500 on her cell phone.  She asked the 
cell phone company to convert her plan to a different payment plan so she would not 
incur as much expense.  The company refused to change the plan so Applicant 
returned her phone and cancelled the plan and refused to pay the bill.  The bill 
continued to accrue expenses and is still unpaid (Tr. 34-36).  After the hearing, 
Applicant contacted the phone company and was informed the debt was now for 
$1,077.33 and had been sold to a collection agency.  The company was unable to 
assist her since the account had been sold.  Applicant tried to contact the collection 
agency but was unsuccessful.  She did learn that there are numerous complaints 
against the collection agency because people cannot reach them to settle or dispute 
debts.  She intends to contact the credit reporting agency to register her dispute 
concerning the debt and have the debt removed from her credit report (App. Ex. D, 
Letter with attachments, dated February 16, 2009). 
 
 SOR delinquent debt 1.h is a debt for space at a storage facility.  When Applicant 
vacated the house she shared with her former husband, she moved to a smaller house 
owned by her parents.  She placed furniture and other items in storage paying $60 per 
month.  She paid the storage fee for a short time, but was unable to maintain the 
monthly payments because of low paying and sporadic employment.  She defaulted a 
few months on the payments and the storage company auctioned Applicant's items in 
the facility to pay the storage delinquent fees.  Applicant claims that the auctioned items 
sold were worth substantially more than the debt owed on the storage facility.  Since 
she believes the storage company was reimbursed for the delinquent fees from the 
auctioned contents, she refuses to pay the debt (Tr. 37-38). 
 
5 
 
 SOR delinquent debt 1.j is for a car that was repossessed by the lender.  
Applicant received the car as part of the divorce degree.  She was making payments on 
the car, but Applicant's former husband included the car debt in his bankruptcy.  As part 
of his bankruptcy, the car had to be returned to the creditor.  He informed Applicant she 
had to return the car to the bank which she did.  Approximately 18 months later, 
Applicant tied to cash a check at her bank which was the same bank that held the note 
on the repossessed car.  She was informed that her bank account had been drafted for 
over $2,000 to pay at least part of the remaining debt on the car.  Even though her 
former husband was cleared of the debt under the bankruptcy, Applicant was still 
responsible for the debt.  With the bankruptcy, the sale of the car, and the funds taken 
from her account, Applicant does not believe she has a debt for the car.  She is not 
making any further payments on the car debt (Tr. 37-39).   
 
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 
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 
6 
 
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 
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 public trust position.  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 a car, medical debts, credit cards, and 
telephone bills, as established by a credit report and Applicant’s statements and 
testimony, 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".   
 
 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" applies in part.  
While the debts were incurred some time ago, they are still unpaid and thus considered 
current.  There are a number of different accounts and debts, so delinquent debt was 
7 
 
incurred frequently.  Most of the delinquent debts were incurred by Applicant's husband 
to pay for his abuse of illegal drugs and alcohol.  Her former husband was released 
from the debts by bankruptcy, but Applicant as a cosigner is still liable for the debts.  
She has tried to pay her cell phone debt but cannot locate contact information for the 
collection agency.  Applicant believes two debts were satisfied by sale of items or 
payment of the debt.  The debts were incurred under the unusual circumstances of her 
divorce and her former husband's incurring the debts for his alcohol and drug abuse.  
These circumstances are not likely to recur.   
 
 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," applies.  All of Applicant's debts are 
directly related to the actions of her former husband.  Applicant and her former husband 
had a potentially comfortable lifestyle before he turned to drug and alcohol abuse.  
Because of his actions, they lost this comfortable lifestyle and incurred delinquent debt.  
Applicant was unaware of her husband's problems or actions that caused financial 
problems.  After learning of the issues, Applicant divorced her former husband.  The 
divorce decree settled property issues, and her former husband had responsibility for 
most of the debts incurred in the marriage.  She had responsibility for only the debts 
incurred by her in her name.  However, Applicant's former husband filed for bankruptcy 
without her knowledge and his part of the debts were discharged.  The creditors then 
sought to collect on the debts from Applicant.  The actions leading to the debts were 
caused by her former husband without Applicant's knowledge.  His actions were beyond 
her control.  Applicant has acted responsibly under the circumstances, by divorcing her 
former husband as soon as she learned of the problems, finding steady employment, 
not incurring additional delinquent debts, and living within her means. 
 
 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.  Applicant presented no information concerning financial 
counseling.   
 
 FC MC ¶ 20(d) 'the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts" applies in part.  Applicant had no 
knowledge of seven of the debts which she believes were incurred by her former 
husband without her knowledge until she received the SOR.  She has not paid any of 
these debts since she believes she is not responsible for them.  She tried to pay a cell 
phone debt but has not been able to obtain contact and payment information.  Two 
other debts should have been satisfied by auction of furniture and repossession and 
payment on a car.  Applicant presented sufficient information to show she is either not 
responsible for the debts or made as good an effort as she could under her 
circumstances to resolve her past due obligations.  Even though she is steadily 
employed, her employment does not provide sufficient income to pay the delinquent 
debts incurred by her former husband to fuel his drug and alcohol abuse.  She merely 
has sufficient income to meet her present financial requirements.  While she has 
outstanding delinquent debts that may legally and technically be her responsibility, she 
8 
 
does not have the financial means to address them.  She has tried to resolve the one 
debt she is responsible for but has been unable to do so because of the collection 
agency lack of contact information.  She reasonably believes two debts have been 
satisfied by sale or auction of items.  She has made a reasonable effort under the 
circumstances to resolve her debts.   
 
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 presented sufficient 
information to show the majority of the listed debts were not caused by her actions but 
by the actions of her former husband, an alcohol and drug abuser.  She has tried to 
contact a collection agency for one debt to no avail.  She does not believe she owes a 
debt on a repossessed car and a storage fee because the debts should have been 
satisfied by sale of furniture and sale of the car coupled with another payment.  
Applicant presented information to establish that she is an excellent and productive 
employee.  Her employer has constantly rewarded her for her work ethic and 
performance.  Her supervisors, friends, and family have attested to her efforts and her 
reputation for reliability and trustworthiness.  
 
The circumstances concerning how Applicant incurred the delinquent debts are 
an important consideration in determining Applicant's suitability for a position of public 
trust.  She incurred the debts through the actions of her former husband in accruing 
debt to pay for his drugs and alcohol abuse.  Applicant was left with the debts after a 
divorce and the discharge of her husband's debts by bankruptcy.  After learning of her 
former husband's drug and alcohol abuse, she took control of her life, divorced him, 
moved closer to her parents for support, found steady employment, and did not use 
credit cards.  She demonstrated she is responsibly managing her present finances 
under the circumstances.  The management of present finances indicates she will be 
9 
 
concerned, responsible, and not careless concerning sensitive information.  Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me with no questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial situation.  
 
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:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   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 
  Subparagraph 1.j:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position.  Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge