1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 08-04999
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
Applicant submitted her Questionnaires for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on
April 13, 2007. On October 28, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness concerns
under Guidelines F and E for Applicant. 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. 
Item 5, Item 6.1
Id.2
Item 10.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 30, 2008. She submitted
a notarized, written response to the SOR allegations on November 16, 2008, and
requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on March 24, 2009. Applicant received the FORM on March
30, 2009. She had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She did not submit a response or
additional evidence. DOHA assigned this case to me on June 11, 2009. The
government submitted 11 exhibits, which have been marked as Item 1-11 and admitted
into the record. Applicant’s response to the SOR has been marked and admitted as
Item 4.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.kk and1.mm through 1.oo of the SOR. She denied the factual allegations in
¶¶ 1.ll and 2.a of the SOR.
Applicant, who is 31 years old, works as a claims analyst for a Department of
Defense contractor, a position she has held for two years. She graduated from high
school in 1997. She married in 1998 and separated in 2004. She has three children,
ages 12, 9 and 5, who live with her.1
Following her separation, Applicant worked less than full time at one job and had
significant periods of unemployment until April 2007, when she obtained her present
employment. She also lacked health insurance for several years. Her parents provided
financial support during this period of time.2
In February 2002, Applicant and her then husband filed for Chapter 13
Bankruptcy protection. Their bankruptcy debts included the debts listed SOR
allegations 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.ee (mortgage). The bankruptcy records reflect that
payments, totaling $730, were made on two accounts with the creditor in allegation 1.d.
and payments were made to the creditor in 1.ee. Payments are not shown for the two
remaining debts. The court dismissed the bankruptcy action in August 2005 after
Applicant’s husband stopped making the required payments.3
The SOR lists 17 debts, totaling $3,557, for medical bills with the local
governmental authority. Applicant indicates that her state income taxes are garnished
each year to pay these debts. She has not provided documentation which supports her
Item 1; Item 6; Item 7; Item 8; Item 9.4
Id.5
Item 6; Item 8; Item 10. 6
Item 7; Item 8; Item 9.7
Item 4; Item 5; Item 6.8
3
statements. Applicant incurred these debts between 2001 and 2003. She also incurred
three other medical debts, totaling $910, in the same period of time.   4
Applicant incurred five other unpaid medical bills, totaling $1,009, between 2005
and 2007. With the exception of the mortgage foreclosure and the debt in allegation
1.d, Applicant incurred additional unpaid debts totaling $5,885 between 2001 and
December 2006. During the investigative interview, Applicant indicated she reached a
settlement with the creditor in allegation 1.aa. She agreed to pay $25 a month and
anticipated the debt would be paid by early 2008. She has not provided proof of this
payment plan and her compliance.5
Applicant and her husband defaulted on their mortgage after they separated.
Applicant does not know if the property was sold at foreclosure or the current status of
the property. She paid her mortgage during the bankruptcy. She has not provided
further documentation about this debt.6
Applicant states that her financial situation is much improved. The most recent
credit report indicates that in the last 15 months, she has not incurred new unpaid debts
and that since about 2006, her unpaid debt accumulation has slowed considerably. She
has not provided documentation showing her current income and expenses nor has she
prepared and submitted a budget.  7
When she completed her SF-85P, Applicant answered “no” to the following
question:
Question 22: Your financial Record
b. Are you now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial
obligation? Include loans or obligations funded or guaranteed by the
federal government,
Applicant denies intentional falsification of her answer. She listed her 2002
bankruptcy filing in response to Question 22, subpart a. She also indicated that she had
not received any bills from creditors.  8
4
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
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.
5
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).
  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations
is set out in AG & 18:  
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 [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns.
Under AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying. Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@
may raise security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt during
her marriage and has been unable to pay these obligations. The evidence is sufficient
to raise these disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate
trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the
disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s financial worries arose during her marriage and resulted in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. She and her husband made payments under the wage
earners plan for a period of time, but then stopped. Applicant and her husband are no
longer together and her finances appear to be improving. Even with these facts, I do not
find this mitigating condition applicable because her financial problems did not arise
under unusual circumstances. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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. As noted above,
Applicant’s financial problems arose during her marriage and increased once she and
her husband separated. She had erratic employment for several years and no medical
insurance. There is no indication her husband provides her with financial support or is
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-9
23133 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
6
helping to resolve these debts. Her current finances are managed, but her past debts
are still unpaid. I find this mitigating condition has some applicability in this case. 
Evidence that “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 “
is potentially mitigating under AG ¶ 20(c). Similarly, AG ¶ 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has not received financial counseling nor has she
provided evidence that these debts are resolved. Her current bills are being paid, but
not her past bills. These mitigating conditions are not applicable. Likewise, AG ¶¶ 20(e)
and 20(f) are not applicable as Applicant has not challenged the validity of her debts
with the creditors or received a sudden influx of income.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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 security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16(a) describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(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; and
For AG ¶ 16(A) to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
government established that Applicant omitted a material fact from her SF-85P when
she answered “no” to Question 22b about past due debts. This information is material
to the evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness to hold a security clearance and to her
honesty. In her response to the FORM, she denies, however, that she had an intent to
hide information about past finances. When a falsification allegation is controverted, the
government has the burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not
establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred. An
administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine
whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or
state of mind at the time the omission occurred.  For DC ¶ 16 (a) to apply, the9
Even if I were to find the government had established disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(a), mitigating10
condition AG 18(f), the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability would
apply as the allegation of intentional falsification was unsubstantiated.
7
government must establish that Applicant’s omission, concealment or falsification in his
answer was deliberate.
When she completed her SF-85P, Applicant listed her 2002 bankruptcy filing,
which indicated a past debt problem. She denied any other old debts because she had
not received any bills from her old creditors. Based on this information, the government
has not established Applicant had an intent to conceal financial information. Guideline
E is found in favor of Applicant.10
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 married very young. She
and her husband quickly incurred significant debts. They filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcy protection and participated in the wage earners repayment plan for a period
of time. They, however, did not complete the repayment plan. Many of the debts listed
in the SOR are for medical treatment and are not included in the bankruptcy action.
Following her separation, Applicant encountered difficulty in finding employment. She
worked sporadically and relied on her parents to provide financial support until she
finally obtained steady employment in 2007. She has managed to pay her current bills,
but has not provided any proof that she has resolved any of the debts listed in the SOR.
Without a financial statement, I am unable to determine if she has sufficient additional
I note that the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.a through 1.gg are barred from collection under state11
law. Because Applicant continued to incur unpaid debt until January 2008, she has shown a pattern of
poor debt payment for a long period of time, not just a window of time. 
8
income to pay her debts as she has three children to raise. In light of the information on
her SF-85P, she has not intentionally falsified her trustworthiness application.11
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or 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, but has mitigated trustworthiness concerns related to her
personal conduct.
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 -1.oo:   Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
  Subparagraph 2.a :   For 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.
                                                                     
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge