DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-03371 
  ) 
 ) 
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 his Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P) as part 
of his employment with a defense contractor on August 8, 2006 (Item 5). On April 22, 
2009, 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 
May 4, 2009 (Item 3).  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 21, 2009. He admitted four and 
denied four of the eight allegations under Guideline F. He noted that four of the debts 
had been settled and paid and he was saving funds to pay the remaining four debts. He 
elected to have the matter decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing (Item 4). 
Department counsel submitted the Government’s written case on June 23, 2009. 
1 
 
2 
 
Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on July 1, 2009, and was 
provided the opportunity to file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or 
mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant has not provided additional information in 
response to the FORM within the 30 day time limit. The case was assigned to me on 
October 8, 2009. Based on a review of the case file and pleadings, eligibility for access 
to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, to 
1.c, and 1.h. He denied the debts at SOR ¶ 1.d to 1.g, and provided documentation that 
the debts had been settled and paid (Item 4, Response to SOR, dated May 21, 2009). 
 
 Applicant is 28 years old and has been a computer systems operator for a 
defense contractor for over three years. He attends college as a part-time student 
working towards a degree in computer information systems. He is married with no 
children (Item 5). His net monthly income is $3,849.70, with monthly expenses of 
$2,878.24. He has a monthly remainder of $366.54 (Item 6, at 6). 
 
 Applicant’s answer to the SOR (Item 2), his answers to interrogatories (Item 5), 
and credit reports (Items 7, 8, 9) establish that Applicant has delinquent debts, totaling 
approximately $15,175. The documents support a debt in collection for a bank credit 
card of $5,326 (SOR 1.a); a credit card debt in collection for a savings and loan of 
$5,035 (SOR 1.b); a store account in collection for $1,951 (SOR 1.c); a medical debt for 
$111 (SOR 1.d); a telephone bill in collection for $207 (SOR 1.e); a medical account for 
$308 (SOR 1.f); another medical account for $85 (SOR 1.g); and another medical 
account for $2,152 (SOR 1.h). The accounts became delinquent between 2005 and 
2008. Applicant presented no information concerning the reasons he has delinquent 
debts. He acknowledged he accumulated debts but noted he is attempting to fulfill his 
financial obligations. 
 
 In answer to the SOR, Applicant noted that the delinquent debts in SOR 1. d to 
1.g were settled and paid. He provided documentation to verify the agreed settlement 
and payment of the debts in the February and March 2009 timeframe (Item 4 with 
attachments). Applicant also acknowledged that he owes the debts at SOR 1. a, 1. b,   
1. c, and 1.g. He noted he is saving to pay these debts. There is no documentation to 
establish any payments made on these debts (See, Item 4, and Response to FORM).  
 
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 
3 
 
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. 
 
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 
4 
 
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 his 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 security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Applicant’s delinquent debts from credit cards and medical debts, 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 he has not 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, some are still unpaid and thus 
current. There are a number of different accounts and debts, so the debts were not 
incurred infrequently. Applicant has not established that the delinquent debts will not 
recur. His continued debts and financial situation cast doubt on his 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); and 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). Applicant has not 
presented any information to establish circumstances beyond his control that caused his 
delinquent debts. He has not presented any information to indicate he has received or is 
receiving financial counseling. He still has four significant debts that he has not taken 
any action to settle or resolve. His financial problems are not under control.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). Applicant presented 
documentation that four of his delinquent debts have been settled and paid. However, 
these are the smallest of his delinquent debts and the total settled and paid is only 
$711. This still leaves Applicant with $14,464 in delinquent 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, concrete method of handling debts is 
needed. Good-faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
5 
 
honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation. Evidence of past irresponsibility is not 
mitigated by payment of debt only under pressure of qualifying for a security clearance. 
Applicant presented information to show he paid four of the eight delinquent debts. 
Applicant did not present a concrete plan as to how he was to pay his remaining 
delinquent debts. His only statement was that he was currently working to obtain money 
to settle the remaining debts. He did not provide information about how he was trying to 
raise funds to pay the debts. A promise to pay debts in the future is not evidence of a 
good-faith intention to resolve debts. Applicant did not present sufficient information to 
establish a good-faith effort to pay creditors or resolve debts. His finances are not under 
control and he has not acted responsibly towards his finances. He has not mitigated 
security concerns for financial considerations. 
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 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 has not presented 
information to show he has taken sufficient action to resolve his financial issues. 
Applicant must establish that he has a "meaningful track record" of debt payment, 
including evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. He is not 
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he paid off each and every debt listed in 
the SOR. All that is required is that he has a plan to resolve his financial problems and 
takes significant action to implement that plan. The entirety of his financial situation and 
his actions can reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent to which his plan to 
reduce his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. Available, reliable 
information about the person's behavior, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, 
should be considered in reaching a determination.  
 
Applicant has not established a "meaningful track record" of debt payment by 
presenting information to show he is taking sufficient, consistent, reasonable, and 
6 
 
responsible action to resolve his financial issues. He did settle and resolve the four 
smallest of his delinquent debts. But this is only a small part of his delinquent debts. He 
did not present any plans on how he intends to resolve and pay his remaining 
delinquent debts. Applicant has not demonstrated that he is managing his finances 
responsibly under the circumstances. He has not presented a consistent record of 
actions to resolve financial issues. He has not established that he has taken and will 
take reasonable steps to address his remaining delinquent debts and resolve his 
financial problems.  The record shows that he has been irresponsible towards his 
financial obligations. The lack of responsible management of present finances and past 
obligations indicates he will not be concerned or responsible, but will be careless, in 
regard to sensitive information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions 
and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. He has not 
established that he is suitable for access to sensitive information. For all these reasons, 
I conclude Appellant has not mitigated the public trust concerns arising from his 
financial situation. Access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   Against Applicant  
  Subparagraph 1.b:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.e:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.g:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h:   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