DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-06704 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on 
September 6, 2007.  On February 27, 2009, 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 March 13, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 21, 2009.  She denied nine and 
admitted five of the SOR allegations under Guideline F, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on April 20, 
2009, and the case was assigned to me on May 4, 2009.  DOHA issued a Notice of 
Hearing on May 20, 2009, for a hearing on June 9, 2009.  I convened the hearing as 
scheduled.  The government offered six exhibits, marked Government Exhibits (Gov. 
1 
 
2 
 
Ex.) 1 through 6, which were received without objection.  Applicant submitted nine 
exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through I, which were received without 
objection.  Applicant testified on her own behalf.  DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of 
the hearing on June 24, 2009.  Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, 
and testimony, eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant signed for the Notice of Hearing on June 1, 2009.  Applicant is entitled 
to 15 days notice of hearing (Directive E3.1.8).  Applicant discussed with Department 
Counsel the hearing date of June 9, 2009, prior to the Notice of hearing being mailed so 
actual notice was given more than 15 days prior to the hearing.  However, Applicant 
signed for the Notice of Hearing only 9 days prior to the hearing.  Applicant waived the 
15 days notice requirement (Tr. 4-5). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 24 years old and has been a computer programmer for a defense 
contractor for over two years.  She is a college graduate who is presently taking courses 
under the auspices of her employer for a master's degree in information systems.  She 
is married with one child.  Applicant completed a financial statement in response to 
Interrogatories.  Her net monthly income is approximately $2,680.  Her husband's net 
monthly salary is approximately $1,300, for a total family monthly income of $3,980.  
The family's combined monthly expense are approximately $3,730, leaving monthly 
discretionary disposable funds of $250 (Tr. 28-29, 32-35; Gov. Ex. 1, Questionnaire for 
Public Trust Position, dated September 6, 2007; Gov. Ex. 3, Answers to Interrogatories, 
dated August 19, 2008).  
 
 Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated November 21, 2008; Gov. Ex. 5, dated June 18, 
2008; and Gov. Ex. 6, dated November 7, 2007) list the following debts: six medical 
accounts in collection for  $332 (SOR 1.a), $697 (SOR 1.b), $104 (SOR 1.c), $27 (SOR 
1.d), $416 (SOR 1.e), and $30 (SOR 1.f); a credit card account past due for $4,270 
(SOR 1.g); two credit card accounts to the same creditor for $467 (SOR 1.h), and in 
collection for $3,503 (SOR 1.i); two telephone debts to different creditors for $582 (SOR 
1.j) and $259 (SOR 1.k); a credit card account in collection for $969 (SOR 1.l); a credit 
card account in collection for $5,098 (SOR 1.m); and a student loan with a bank in 
collection for $14,481 (SOR 1.n).   
 
 Applicant attributes her delinquent debts to periods of unemployment, lack of 
financial education, and financial hardship in 2005/2006.  She had health issues 
associated with cancer, was a student, and could not find full-time work.  She also 
became pregnant which affected her ability to work (Tr. 17-18). 
 
 Applicant has been working with a bank official since September 2008 to 
restructure her debt so it can be paid on time.  Through their efforts, she developed a 
plan to restructure her expenses, save funds, and pay off debts in turn.  She has been 
able under the plan to pay creditors and improved her credit score.  Her plan is to 
3 
 
continue to save funds monthly until she has sufficient funds to pay the next debt she 
intends to pay.  She made her last payment on the most recent debt paid in March 
2009.  Since then, she has saved $300 towards her next debt to be paid, the debt listed 
at SOR 1.g.  She has been able to save and pay more of her debts since commencing 
work with her present employer (Tr. 23-28, 37-39, 44-48).   
 
 She has followed her repayment plan and has been able to pay nine of fourteen 
listed delinquent debts.  SOR 1.a to SOR 1.e are medical debts to the same medical 
facility.  The debts have been paid in full (Tr. 18; App. Ex. A, Letter, dated March 13, 
2009).  The medical debt at SOR 1.f has also been paid in full (Tr. 19; App. Ex. B, 
Receipt, dated October 3, 2008).  SOR 1.h is a debt to a bank in collection.  It has been 
paid in full (Tr. 20; App. Ex. C, Letter, dated March 13, 2009).  SOR 1.j and 1.k are 
telephone bills to different companies that have been paid in full (Tr. 21; App. Ex D, 
Letter, dated March 27, 2009; App. Ex. E, Letter, dated March 25, 2009).  Department 
counsel concurs that the debts have been paid in full (Tr. 23-24).   
 
 SOR 1.g, 1.i, 1.l, and 1.m. are credit card debts in collection by various collection 
agencies.  Applicant stopped making payments on the credit card in approximately 2005 
when she had trouble with full time employment because of school and health issues.  
The debts have not been paid.  Applicant has not used the credit card since October 
2005.  According to her plan, Applicant is saving funds to pay her next debt which is 
SOR 1.g.  She is working with the collection agency creditors to develop a payment 
plan.  After paying each debt in full, she will move to pay the next debt.  Debt 1.n is a 
student loan with a private bank that has not been consolidated or deferred.  She has 
other student loans that are deferred since she is in school studying for her master's 
degree (Tr. 21-24, 28-31, 40-46). 
 
 Applicant presented letters of commendation and recommendation from a friend, 
a co-worker, and supervisors.  The mayor of Applicant's town notes that he has known 
her for a number of years because she worked in his family business.  She is extremely 
efficient, reliable, and trustworthy (App. Ex. F, Letter, undated).  A supervisor notes that 
Applicant has been a model employee who seeks out challenges to enhance her job 
performance (App. Ex. G, Letter, dated May 4, 2009).  An employer who Applicant 
works for part time notes that she is a person of integrity and honesty.  Applicant 
handles business arrangement and funds for the business.  She is dedicated to the 
safeguarding of funds and is a good young business woman (App. Ex. H, Letter, 
undated).  Applicant's supervisor notes that she has known Applicant since she joined 
their company.  Applicant has shared with her and fellow employees what she learned 
about debt management and paying off debt.  She is always willing to share her 
knowledge with fellow employees.  Applicant is an outstanding professional and an 
asset to the team (App. Ex. I, Letter, dated June 9, 2009).   
 
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 
4 
 
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 commonsense 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 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
There is a public trust 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 sensitive 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 credit cards and student loans, as 
established by credit reports 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).  Applicant has paid nine of the fourteen delinquent debts listed.  However, 
five delinquent debts, four credit cards and one student loan, are over four years old 
indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations as well as an inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts. 
 
 I considered financial considerations mitigating conditions (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), and 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).  While the debts were incurred some time ago, some have 
only recently been paid and other debts are still unpaid so they are considered current.  
The debts accumulated while Applicant was a student with health problems with a 
young baby.  Some of these events are beyond her control but they are still normal 
happenings in life.  The circumstances can recur.  She is now acting responsibly in 
seeking financial counseling, following professional advice, and developing and 
executing a plan to pay her delinquent debts.  These mitigating conditions partially 
apply. 
 
 I have considered FC MC ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving 
counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being 
6 
 
resolved or is under control).  Applicant sought and received assistance from a bank 
official on budgeting and developed a plan to pay her delinquent debts.  She followed 
that plan and sought follow-up advice from the bank official.  Applicant's financial 
problems are being resolved.   
 
I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).  For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay.  A systematic method of handling debts is needed.  Applicant 
must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment.  A "meaningful track 
record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual debt payments or 
reduction of debt through payment of debts.  An applicant is not required to establish 
that she paid off each and every debt listed.  The entirety of an applicant's financial 
situation and her actions can reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent to which 
that applicant’s plan for the reduction of her outstanding indebtedness is credible and 
realistic.  There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding 
debts simultaneously.  Rather, a reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide 
for the payment of such debts one at a time.  Likewise, there is no requirement that the 
first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the 
SOR.  All that is required is that Applicant demonstrates she has established a plan to 
resolve her financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.   
 
Applicant developed with her financial counselor a plan to pay her delinquent 
debts in turn.  She has a systematic method of handling her delinquent debts.  She 
presented sufficient credible information to establish she followed her plan and paid in 
full nine of the fourteen delinquent debts listed in the SOR.  Appellant has the ability to 
pay her remaining five delinquent debts in accordance with her plan.  She is saving 
funds each month to accumulate a sufficient amount to either pay the next debt on her 
plan or enter a payment plan with the creditor.  She established a meaningful track 
record of debt payment by showing actual payment of debts.  Her plan is reasonable 
and permits her to accumulate funds to pay the debts in turn.  She is executing the plan.  
She established her good faith effort to satisfy her outstanding debts and mitigate 
security concerns for financial considerations.  Her finances do not indicate a security 
concern.   
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole person concept, an 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) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
7 
 
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 established a meaningful 
track record of debt payment.  She paid nine of the fourteen debts in the SOR and has a 
credible plan to pay the remaining five.  She demonstrated she is responsibly managing 
her finances under the circumstances.  Her management of finances indicates she will 
be concerned, responsible, and not careless concerning sensitive information.  Overall, 
the record evidence leaves me with no questions or 
 
 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 his 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 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.n:   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