1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ADP Case No. 08-11896
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, Applicant’s eligibility
for a public trust position is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P, Item 5)
on June 25, 2008. On October 9, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator
from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The primary issue of the interview
was her delinquent debts. On October 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to
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), and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President
on December 29, 2005, and made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued on or after September 1, 2006. 
2
Applicant submitted her answer to the SOR on October 28, 2009. She requested
a decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the Government’s File
of Relevant Material (FORM, the government’s evidence in support of the allegations of
the SOR) was sent to Applicant on November 19, 2009. Applicant received the FORM
on November 30, 2009. Her response was due on December 30, 2009. No response
was received. The case file was assigned to me on February 4, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges 30 delinquent accounts totaling more than $36,848.00 under
the financial considerations guideline. The delinquent debts consist of credit cards,
personal loans, medical bills, and telephone accounts. The debts became delinquent
between April 2002 and August 2008. Applicant admitted all the debts except for 1.f.,
1.k., 1.n., 1.o., 1.v., 1.u., 1.w., and 1.cc., contending she did not recognize the debt or
that she had negotiated a settlement with the creditor. See, SOR 1.n. and 1.o.
Applicant is 40 years old and single. She has been employed in a CA III position
at a Blue Cross medical insurance facility since 2001 ( SF 85P, Item 5). 
On October 9, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by an OPM investigator (Item 6).
She explained she encountered financial problems after moving from the northeast to
her current residential location in 1999. She opened several credit cards and personal
loans, but could not maintain the payments. She opened a debt consolidation loan in
June 2003 (SOR 1.k.), with her mother as co-signer. Applicant intended to use the
funds to pay off other delinquent debts. However, she could not maintain the payments
on the loan. Currently, the loan is listed in her mother’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
(Id.).    
Item 6 also contains another statement by Applicant, dated March 30, 2009,
concerning her financial difficulties. Applicant indicated she made poor choices with her
finances while raising two children as a single parent, but she has never done anything
illegal. She stated that she loves her job and is dedicated to the mission of her
employer. Applicant then indicated that her attempts to resolve her financial situation
should be considered (Id.).
In additional interrogatory answers dated March 30, 2009 (Item 7), Applicant
provided a personal financial statement (PFS) indicating she had a negative monthly
remainder of $587, after payment of her expenses. See also, Applicant’s admission to
SOR 1.ee. Following the PFS, Applicant submitted documentation from the two
creditors listed in SOR 1.b. and 1.dd. She wrote on the documentation that she had paid
the creditors. However, she supplied no receipts or bank statements showing that the
bills had actually been paid.
In a supplemental statement attached to her answer to the SOR, dated October
28, 2009, Applicant stated she has been employed in her position for nine years without
an infraction, such as stealing or gambling. She noted that she established “some
3
payment agreements” with creditors, but presented no additional information. In her
answer to the SOR, she indicated she was paying $79 monthly to the creditor identified
in SOR 1.n., and $79 a month to the same creditor for a second account identified in
SOR 1.o. However, Applicant provided no actual documentation of payment to either
creditor. 
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no character evidence regarding her job performance or her
reputation in the community where she lives. 
Policies
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Program Office (CHCSPO), the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASDC3I), entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which gave DOHA the responsibility to
provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel working on unclassified
Information Systems Positions as defined in DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel
Security Program, dated January 1987.
To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the
security guidelines contained in DoD 5200.2-R. “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.” The
Regulation sets forth personnel security guidelines, disqualifying and mitigating
conditions under each guideline. In determining whether the applicant qualifies for a
sensitive position under the trustworthiness standard, the applicant must be provided
the due process procedures contained in DoD Directive 5220.6.
In addition to the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of each security
guideline, the general factors of the whole-person concept should be applied in deciding
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant an applicant eligibility
for assignment to sensitive duties. 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position. Recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s ultimate
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to the AG,
the entire process is a careful, thorough evaluation of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
4
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
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 security
decision. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations (FC)
AG ¶ 18 describes the security concerns under the financial considerations
guideline:
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 classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in ilegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
The financial guideline lists two disqualifying conditions that may be applicable to
this case:
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of failing to meet financial obligations).
Applicant explained in her interview that she began having financial problems
after opening several credit accounts and personal loans, and discovering she could not
maintain the payments. Between 2002 and August 2008, Applicant accumulated 30
delinquent debts totaling $36,848. AG ¶ 19(a) applies to Applicant’s inability to satisfy
her debts. AG ¶ 19(c) applies based Applicant’s six-year history of not meeting financial
obligations.
Four conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Applicant’s delinquent
indebtedness:
AG ¶ 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
5
cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment); 
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were
largely beyond the person’s control, and the person acted responsibly
under the circumstances); 
AG ¶ 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); and
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
¶ 20(a) does not apply because of the large number of accounts that became
delinquent between 2002 and 2008. The lack of a plan to resolve her delinquent
accounts continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness and good
judgment.
In order to receive credit under AG ¶ 20(b), an applicant must show that
unforeseen events prevented her from paying her debts. The record reflects that
Applicant has been employed by her employer for the last nine years. She provided no
evidence indicating she suffered an unexpected medical condition or some other
problem beyond her control that resulted in the financial problem. AG ¶ 20(b) does not
apply.
Applicant has not had financial counseling. Even if there was evidence of
counseling, AG ¶ 20(c) still would not apply because Applicant has done nothing to
improve her financial situation. In addition, AG ¶ 20(d) must be removed from
consideration because there is no evidence showing that any of the debts, even the
smaller debts, have been paid or settled. Applicant has failed to show that she is eligible
for a public trust position. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence with the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial guideline. I have also weighed
the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole-person
concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge
should consider the following factors: 
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 the participation was voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
6
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.
Applicant’s nine years of uninterrupted employment with her employer since
1991 without incident weighs in her favor. Her dedication to her children, her employer
and her colleagues, also weighs in her favor. There is no evidence that she has a
criminal record or has ever violated proprietary rules. 
Conversely, failing to pay voluntarily incurred debt demonstrates financial
irresponsibility. Applicant has a lengthy history of financial problems, with some of her
delinquent debt more than six years old. She was informed in October 2008 that her
delinquent debts were a concern of the Government. In March 2009, she was advised a
second time that the Government was concerned about her delinquent accounts.
Without evidence of a plan to deal with her delinquent debts, Applicant has not
mitigated the Government’s case under the financial considerations guideline. 
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 (Financial Considerations, Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. through 1 ee. Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust
position. Eligibility for access to a public trust position denied. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge