DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 08-09241 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: David Lamar Boulware, II, Personal Representative 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on 
August 16, 2007, as part of her employment with a defense contractor. On July 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 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 August 3, 
2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing in an undated response received at 
DOHA on August 25, 2009. She admitted the 28 allegations under Guideline F. She 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared 
to proceed on September 21, 2009, and the case was assigned to me on September 
25, 2009. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on October 8, 2009, for a hearing on 
October 20, 2009. Applicant received the Notice of Hearing on October 12, 2009. I 
1 
 
2 
 
convened the hearing as scheduled. The government offered seven exhibits, marked 
Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. 
Applicant submitted ten exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through J, 
which were admitted without objection. Applicant called one witness and testified on her 
own behalf. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on November 3, 2009. 
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for 
access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant received the Notice of Hearing on October 12, 2009. Applicant is 
entitled to 15 days advance notice of the hearing (Directive ¶ E3.1.8). Applicant 
discussed with Department Counsel the hearing date of October 20, 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 eight days prior to 
the hearing. At the hearing, Applicant waived the 15 days notice requirement (Tr. 5-6). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. Applicant admitted all of the 28 allegations in 
response to the SOR. Her admissions are included in my findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 36 years old, and has been a claims associate for a defense 
contractor for about two years. She married in 1999. She is still legally married, but 
separated from her husband in 2003. She lives with another person and shares living 
expenses. She has no children. Her monthly income is approximately $1,259. Her 
monthly expenses are approximately $900, leaving her approximately $300 in monthly 
disposable income. She is able to meet her current expenses and make small payments 
on past due debts (Tr. 78-80, 86; Gov. Ex. 1, Questionnaire for Public Trust Position, 
dated August 16, 2007). 
 
 Applicant has been an excellent worker for her employer. Her average ratings 
are in the "sometimes exceeds expectation" category (App. Ex. A, Letter, dated October 
12, 2009). She has also completed a number of training courses provided by her 
employer (App. Ex. F, Certificates, various dates). She has been commended for 
outstanding service on a number of occasions (App. Ex. G, Award certificates, various 
dates).  
 
 Friends and former employers attest to her reputation for reliability and 
trustworthiness. A friend noted that she has known Applicant for over 20 years and 
considers her trustworthy, reliable, and dependable. (App. Ex. B, Letter, dated October 
20, 2009). Her former employer noted that Applicant was a valued and trusted 
employee who was promoted to assistant manager at one of his stores. Applicant 
managed the employees schedules, inventory, receipt of merchandise, store opening 
and closing, money, and bank deposits. There was never an issue concerning her 
reliability and trustworthiness (App. Ex. C, Letter, dated October 19, 2009). A fellow 
3 
 
worker at her present job stated that she has known Applicant for two years and 
considers her a reliable and dependable worker who is an asset for the employer (App. 
Ex. D, Letter, dated October 19, 2009). Applicant's pastor testified that he has known 
her for about two years. He believes she is absolutely trustworthy, and was put into a 
difficult circumstance by her husband. She struggled and is struggling to pay her bills 
(Tr. 89-91), 
 
 Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated June 17, 2009; Gov. Ex. 5, dated April 14, 
2009; Gov. Ex. 6, dated October 2, 2008; and Gov. Ex. 7, dated September 12, 2007) 
listed 28 delinquent debts totaling approximately $49,113 owed by Applicant. The debts 
include 23 collection accounts, two judgments, and three charged-off accounts. The 
delinquent debts consist of medical debts in collection for $31 (SOR 1.a), $54 (SOR 
1.b), $168 (SOR 1.c), $50 (SOR 1.d), $74 (SOR 1.e), $676 (SOR 1.f), and $108 (SOR 
1.g). There are two judgments for medical accounts for $748 (SOR 1.h), and $908 
(SOR 1.i). There are delinquent debts in collection on credit cards or to department 
stores for $823 (SOR 1.j), $3,703 (SOR 1.k), $910 (SOR 1.l), $7,130 (SOR 1.m), $2,232 
(SOR 1.n), $1,448 (SOR 1.o), $4,494 (SOR 1.p), $445 (SOR 1.r), $4,836 (SOR 1.t), 
$887 (SOR 1.u), $3,338 (SOR 1.w), $2,691 (SOR 1.x), $861 (SOR 1.y), $401 (SOR 
1.z), $7,902 (SOR 1.aa), and $106 (SOR 1.bb). There are three charged-off accounts to 
a mail-order account for $45 (SOR 1.q), to a bank for $825 (SOR 1.s), and to a 
department store for $764 (SOR 1.v). 
 
 Applicant was current paying her debts until her husband started using drugs and 
alcohol in 2003. He stole Applicant's property and spent their funds to meet his 
addiction for drugs and alcohol. He stopped working because of his drug and alcohol 
abuse. Applicant also lost her job in March 2003 when the business where she worked 
closed. Applicant finally left her husband in April 2003. She found new employment in 
May 2003 at a store where she became a trusted employee. She was hired at another 
store where she was again became a trusted employee. She moved up and was an 
assistant manager for over four years. She was at this position until starting work for her 
present employer. By that time she left her husband, her finances had deteriorated, and 
she was unable to pay her delinquent debts. She was using credit cards and loans to 
meet her living expenses for food, clothes, and other items. She lacked funds to pay for 
her divorce and she was unable to start the divorce process until March 2008 (Tr. 28-
32).   
 
 Applicant's personal information on her e-QIP was compromised when the e-QIP 
was lost in transmission to the investigative agency. Applicant could not easily access 
her credit information, and could not get information through the internet. The credit 
information had to be verified, sent by mail, and was delayed. This process hindered her 
ability to manage her delinquent debt payments (Tr. 36-38; App. Ex. E, OPM Letter, 
dated July 9, 2008).  
 
 The delinquent debts from SOR 1.a through SOR 1.g are for medical debts in 
collection. Applicant had medical problems starting with an operation in 2002 and 
incurred medical expenses. She is unsure of the origin of these debts and does not 
know the original or follow-on creditors. She paid some medical expenses but is unsure 
4 
 
if the payments relate to any of the medical debts listed in the SOR. She has not 
contacted any creditors or made any payments on the debts (Tr. 48-52). She knows the 
medical judgments at SOR 1.h and 1.i are from the local hospital. She contacted the 
hospital at the time the judgments were entered against her in 2003. She was unable to 
pay the debts. She has not contacted the hospital since then and has not paid the debts 
(Tr. 53-54). 
 
 The delinquent debts at SOR 1.j through 1.bb are to various creditors or 
collection agencies for debts on credit card, for department stores, and for loans. 
Applicant acknowledges that she owes all of these debts. She has not been in contact 
with most of these creditors and has not made payments on most of the debts. She 
does not have a plan to pay the debts. She made some payments on some medical and 
other debts, but is unable to connect the payments to any specific debt except for some 
payments made on the debt at SOR 1.y (Tr. 54-72; App. Ex. I, Checks, Various dates; 
App. Ex. J Receipt, dated July 22, 2009).   
 
 In her answer to interrogatories in December 2008, Applicant indicated she was 
in contact with a credit counseling service to create a debt management plan. She 
received a reply from them which provided her a long process for managing her 
delinquent debts. She was still trying to gather her credit information for the credit 
counseling agency, but is hindered because her personal information was 
compromised. She states she is doing what she can to pay her debts. Her plan is to pay 
her debts as best she can while still paying her current debts, such as utilities and rent. 
She says she is "doing the best she can." She does not have a written budget, but 
knows financially what she can and cannot do. (Tr. 34-38, 74-75 App. Ex. H, Letter, 
dated April 8, 2009). 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.” 
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.” Trustworthiness adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA 
by the Defense Security Service and Office of Personnel Management (See, The 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security) Memorandum, 
dated November 19, 2004). 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 or a sensitive 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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a 
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” 
5 
 
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the 
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision (AG ¶ 2(c)). 
 
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, an 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 for 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 
 
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 
(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, as established by credit reports and 
Applicant’s statements and testimony, are a security concern raising Financial 
6 
 
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 28 delinquent debts consisting of medical bills, credit cards, telephone 
service debts, and loans that have been delinquent for some time, indicating a history of 
not meeting financial obligations, as well as an inability or unwillingness to satisfy her 
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 separation) and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances). These mitigating conditions do not apply. The debts became 
delinquent as early as 2003, are still unpaid, and are thus current debt. Applicant has 
not paid in full any of the debts. Her ability to pay her debts on her present income is 
minimal. While she is current with her present bills, the likelihood of continued financial 
problems are great. Applicant incurred the debts when her husband started using drugs 
and alcohol in 2003. She has made only minimal payments or inquiries concerning the 
debts since then. Many of the debts are for small amounts and could be resolved with 
small payments. She has been gainfully employed since 2003 so she could have made 
some payments on some debts. While her husband's drug and alcohol abuse led to her 
financial problems and were largely beyond her control, she has not inquired about the 
debts or made payments, so she has not acted responsibly. When the debts mounted, 
she basically ignored them and thus did not act responsibly. There is a strong indication 
her financial problems are likely to recur because she has only minimal funds to meet 
her present financial obligations and pay her past-due debts. The debts cast doubt on 
her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 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 
resolved or is under control). This mitigating condition partially applies. Applicant 
received financial counseling starting in December 2008, but she has not been active in 
working with the credit counselor to help resolve her debt issues.  
 
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. 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. Available, reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a 
7 
 
determination. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrates that she has 
established a plan to resolve her financial problems and has taken significant actions to 
implement that plan.   
 
Applicant has not paid and is not making payments on her past due financial 
obligations. She has not even contacted most of the creditors to verify her debts. She 
has made some payments on debts, which are minimal and without a plan. Applicant's 
lack of action to pay her debts is significant and credible information to show that she 
has not acted reasonably under the circumstances. Applicant has not acted responsibly 
towards her debts and finances under the circumstances. Applicant has not presented 
sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations because 
she did not establish that the reasons for her debts were beyond her control and that 
she took reasonable and responsible efforts to manage her finances. Her finances 
indicate a public trust 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 
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. I considered that Applicant is a good 
employee and is well regarded by her employer. Her co-workers, supervisor, friends, 
and pastor believe she is a reliable and trustworthy person. I considered that Applicant's 
husband's drug abuse was a major cause of her financial problems 
 
 Applicant has not established a meaningful track record of paying her delinquent 
debts, since she has not made payments on them. Applicant paid two debts but was 
unable to specifically determine which debt was paid, nor did she provide 
documentation to verify payment to a specific debt except for a payment made on the 
debt at SOR 1.y. She has not acted reasonably and responsibly towards her finances 
which indicates she may not act reasonably and responsibly to protect sensitive 
8 
 
information. In the future, if Applicant is able to establish a meaningful track record of 
debt payment and reduction, she should be afforded the opportunity to establish 
eligibility for a position of public trust. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with 
questions and 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 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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.bb:  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