DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 09-04512 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Nichole Noel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
On July 31, 2008, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position 
(SF 85P), as part of her employment with a defense contractor. On January 26, 2010, 
the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns for financial considerations 
(Guideline F), and personal conduct (Guideline E). 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 adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on February 15, 2010. She admitted eight and 
denied one of the nine allegations under Guideline F. She denied the one allegation 
under Guideline E. She requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department 
Counsel was prepared to proceed on March 12, 2010, and the case was assigned to 
me on March 17, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on March 22, 2010, for a 
hearing on April 8, 2010. Applicant signed for the Notice of Hearing on March 30, 2010. 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. The government offered six exhibits, marked 
1 
 
2 
 
Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 6, which were received without objection. 
Applicant submitted six exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through F, 
which were received without objection. I left the record open for Applicant to submit 
additional documents. Applicant timely submitted three additional documents marked 
App. Ex. G through I. Department Counsel had no objection to admission of the 
additional documents. (Gov. Ex. 7, Memorandum, dated April 26, 2010) DOHA received 
the transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on April 15, 2010. 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 March 30, 2010. Applicant is 
entitled to 15 days notice of hearing (Directive E3.1.8.). Applicant discussed with 
Department Counsel the hearing date of April 8, 2010, prior to the Notice of Hearing 
being mailed on March 22, 2010. Actual notice was therefore given more than 15 days 
prior to the hearing. However, Applicant signed for the Notice of Hearing only eight days 
prior to the hearing. If there was an issue on notice, Applicant waived the 15 days notice 
requirement. (Tr. 6-7) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted eight of the nine allegations under Guideline F in the SOR. 
Her answer to the one allegation under Guideline E was ambiguous, but it was 
determined at the hearing that she denied the allegation. After a thorough review of the 
pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following essential findings of fact.   
 
 Applicant is 41 years old, and has been a medical benefits representative for a 
defense contractor for approximately nine months. She has been married three times 
and has three sons that live with their father. She pays child support for them of $350 
per month. Her third marriage was on September 23, 2006, and she has a step-son 
from this marriage living independently. She is a high school graduate with some 
college and technical school credit. Her employer is paying for her to attend school part-
time to become more proficient in her field. (Tr. 21-23; Gov. Ex. 1, Questionnaire for 
Public Trust Position, dated July 31, 2008; App. Ex. D, Technical College Letter, dated 
December 17, 2009) Applicant has been placed in charge of her unit's operations when 
her supervisor is unable to be in the office. (Tr. 19, App. Ex. E, E-mails, dated March 30, 
2010, and April 5, 2010)  
 
 Applicant worked as an administrative assistant for an automobile dealer for 
approximately eight years until the dealership closed in August 2007. Her husband was 
employed as an automobile mechanic for another dealer and was paid on commission. 
Both were earning a good salary and their combined yearly gross income prior to the 
dealership closing was approximately $57,000. Up until that time, they were current with 
their bills and living within their means. At the same time that Applicant lost her job in 
August 2007, the economic downturn affected the number of repairs and commissions 
that her husband received. The automobile repair assignments were cut and his income 
3 
 
was reduced considerably. Their combined yearly salary was reduced to approximately 
$36,000 in 2008. After the dealership closed, Applicant was unemployed for 
approximately a month until September 2007, when she started a temporary job that 
paid four dollars less an hour then she made at the automobile dealership. During this 
time, Applicant had small medical issues that placed her on leave without pay for a few 
weeks. She worked at this new job for about nine months before leaving for medical 
reasons. She started working after being on sick leave for two months at her present 
employer as a benefits representative under a temporary agency contract. She received 
a permanent position with the contractor in December 2009. Applicant's husband 
switched jobs so he could do more automobile repairs and receive more commissions. 
During this time of unemployment and underemployment, Applicant and her husband 
used credit cards and loans for their basic living expenses. They tried as best they could 
to live within their limited income and to stay current with their bills. (Tr. 23-30)  
 
 Applicant's present yearly salary is $28,000, and her husband's yearly salary is 
$40,000, for a total yearly income of $68,000. Applicant's monthly income is budgeted at 
$1,278, and her husband's monthly income is budgeted at $2,677. In March 2010, both 
earned more money than budgeted, Applicant earned $1,925, and her husband $3,309 
for a combined monthly total of $5,235, against the budgeted amount of $3,955. This 
now seems to be aa trend in their salary levels. (Tr. 30-31; App. Ex. C, Budget, March 
2010) 
 
 Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated November 1, 2009; Gov. Ex. 5, dated July 10, 
2009; and Gov. Ex. 6, dated August 28, 2008), as well as Applicant's answers to 
Interrogatories (Gov. Ex. 2, dated August 26, 2009, and October 1, 2009) listed 
delinquent debts for Applicant totaling approximately $31,326. The debts include a 
telephone account placed for collection for $135 (SOR 1.a); a loan charged off for 
$8,247 (SOR 1.b); a credit card in collection for $2,130 (SOR 1.c); another credit card 
charged off for $2,255 (SOR 1.d); a student loan account charged off for $6,205 (SOR 
1.e); two accounts to the same bank charged off for $2,338 (SOR 1.f), and $5,981 (SOR 
1.g); a mail order account charged off for $1,340 (SOR 1.h); and another credit card 
account in collection for $2,693. Most of the debts are attributed to using the cards to 
pay for normal living expenses.  
   
 Applicant paid some of her debts not alleged in the SOR to free funds to pay 
debts alleged in the SOR. She recently completed payment on her car loan freeing 
$230 monthly to pay other debts. She also completed payment on a loan used for living 
expenses freeing another $110 for debt payments. Applicant and her husband 
established a budget which included payments on delinquent debts. Applicant provided 
information to show that she made payments on her delinquent debts as reflected in her 
budget. (Tr. 16-20; App. Ex. A, Car Loan Release, dated February 17, 2010; App. Ex. B, 
Cancelled Checks, dated January 15, 2010; App. Ex C, Budget, March 2010; App. Ex. 
F, Payments, March 2010) Applicant also paid medical bills associated with a recent 
surgery. (Gov. Ex. 3, Answers to Interrogatories, dated October 1, 2009, at I-24) She 
paid other small debts. These debt payments have freed over $300 monthly for 
payment on other delinquent debts. (Gov. Ex. 3, Answers to Interrogatories, dated 
October 1, 2009, at I-9). 
4 
 
 Applicant made many efforts both before and after the hearing to contact the 
original creditor and the collection agency in regard to the telephone debt alleged at 
SOR 1.a., but the creditor and collection agency could not verify a debt owed by 
Applicant. She is willing to pay the debt if it is verified as her debt. (Tr. 36-38; App. Ex. 
E, Letter, dated April 15, 2010) After the hearing, Applicant provided the last telephone 
company statement she received when she terminated the cell phone service in March 
2001. It reflects a balance of $63.47, but it also shows payment of that amount on April 
10, 2001. She provided a copy of her credit report showing that the last action on the 
account listed by the telephone company with the credit reporting agency was in May 
2002. (App. Ex. I, Credit Report, dated August 28, 2008; App. Ex. G, Bill, dated March 
2, 2001, App. Ex. H, Statement, undated) 
 
 The delinquent debt at SOR 1.b is for a consolidation loan used to pay other 
debts. The delinquent debts at SOR 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.i arose when Applicant used 
credit cards to meet her living expenses when she was unemployed or underemployed. 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.e is a student loan Applicant used to pay for schooling 
while unemployed. The delinquent debt at SOR 1.h is from a catalog sales company 
Applicant used to purchase household items needed when she was unemployed. 
Applicant's budget and information reflect small payments on all of these debts. 
Applicant's plan is to pay small debts first and then use the funds freed from payment of 
these debts to pay or increase payment of the larger debts. Attached to her budget are 
either cancelled checks or receipts reflecting that these payments are being made 
according to her budget. Since Applicant has paid other debts freeing additional funds, 
she will be increasing the amount she pays on these debts. (Tr. 39-60; App. Ex. C, 
budget, March 2010)  
 
 Applicant completed her application for a position of public trust on July 31, 2008. 
She was pleased that she had received the job offer. She was asked to complete the 
application immediately so she could get a date to start work. She quickly completed 
that application without thinking through all of the questions. She knew that her 
background would be investigated and that she would be questioned about her 
finances. Her mother worked for the government for over 25 years so she was familiar 
with background checks. She checked "no" concerning debts over 180 days in error and 
not to deliberately mislead any investigations concerning her background. (Tr. 61-63) 
 
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.)   
5 
 
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.” 
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 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 public trust concern for a failure or inability to live within one=s means, 
satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations because such actions 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 his or 
her 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. 
6 
 
 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, show delinquent debts 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 incurred delinquent debt when she lost employment in August 
2007 and was either unemployed or underemployed until December 2008. Her husband 
also lost significant income because of the economic downturn which affected the 
amount of work and commissions he received. Applicant had to rely on credit cards and 
loans to meet living expenses. This shows a history of not meeting financial obligations 
because of an inability, and not unwillingness, to satisfy debt. 
 
 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). Both of these mitigating conditions apply to Applicant's 
financial problems. The debts became delinquent because Applicant and her husband 
lost good-paying jobs they had for many years which permitted them to stay current on 
their debts. Her financial problems were caused by job loss and the economic downturn, 
both conditions beyond Applicant's control. Applicant continued to seek employment 
and work in a job that paid significantly less than her old position after losing her well-
paying job. She went back to school at her employers' expense so she could better 
perform her job for the employer. Since the position provides support needed by military 
personnel, it is unlikely that she will experience more periods of unemployment. Her 
husband also lost significant income because of the economic downturn. He switched 
employers and is in a better position to manage his economic conditions. Both Applicant 
and her husband changed jobs and are now gainfully employed. They paid some of 
their smaller debts to free funds to pay larger debts. They are making payments, even 
though small at this time, on all of their delinquent debts. They have a plan to increase 
their payments as other debts are paid, freeing funds to make larger debt payments. 
Applicant's financial problems were caused by conditions beyond her control. She acted 
responsibly by aggressively seeking employment, although at a lower pay, and not 
incurring any additional financial obligations. The conditions causing the loss of her 
employment are unlikely to recur, and she acted reasonably under the circumstances. 
Her past-due debts do not cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment under these circumstances,  
 
7 
 
 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) and it only partially applies. There is no indication Applicant 
received financial counseling. However, her financial problems are being resolved or 
are 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) and it does apply. 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. 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. All that is required is that Applicant demonstrates 
she has established a plan to resolve her financial problems and has taken significant 
actions to implement that plan. Applicant has a plan to resolve her past due financial 
obligations. She paid off some of her debts, thereby freeing funds to make payments on 
her large debts. She is making monthly payments on all of her outstanding delinquent 
debts. She established a meaningful track record of debt reduction. 
 
Applicant has acted responsibly towards her debts caused by conditions beyond 
her control. Applicant has presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns 
for financial considerations because she took aggressive and reasonable action to find 
employment after being laid-off, paying debts as she could, and controlled her future 
spending. Her finances do not indicate a public trust concern. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A trustworthiness concern is raised because conduct involving questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and 
ability to protect sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful 
and candid answers during the trustworthiness clearance process or any other failure to 
cooperate with the trustworthiness clearance process. (AG ¶ 15) Personal conduct is 
always a trustworthiness concern because it asks the central question does the 
person’s past conduct justify confidence the person can be entrusted to properly 
safeguard sensitive information. The trustworthiness clearance system depends on the 
individual providing correct and accurate information. If a person conceals or provides 
false information, the trustworthiness clearance process cannot function properly to 
ensure that granting access to sensitive information is in the best interest of the United 
States Government. 
 
 Applicant’s incomplete answers to a questions on her public trust application 
concerning her finances raises a potential trustworthiness concern under Personal 
Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission, 
8 
 
concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security 
questionnaire, personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, to 
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness). 
 
 Applicant denied intentional falsification. In response to financial questions on the 
trustworthiness clearance application, Applicant responded that she did not have any 
debts more than 180 days past due in the last seven years. In fact, Applicant had debts 
as noted in the SOR more than 180 days past due. A trustworthiness concern may arise 
for an omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document 
or oral statement to the government when applying for a trustworthiness clearance. But 
every omission, concealment, or inaccurate statement is not a falsification. A 
falsification must be deliberate and material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and 
willfully. Applicant was aware of the debts more than 180 days past due, but in her 
haste to complete the application and start her new job, she carelessly checked the 
wrong box noting she that she did not have debts more than 180 days past due. The 
available information shows her failure to list her past due debts was not knowing and 
willful. Applicant established that she did not deliberately fail to provide full information 
on the trustworthiness clearance application with intent to deceive. I find for Appellant 
as to Personal Conduct pertaining to falsification of the trustworthiness clearance 
application.   
  
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 Applicant and her 
husband lost well-paying jobs after many years because of conditions beyond their 
control. I considered that she and her husband aggressively sought employment and 
that Applicant was only unemployed for a few short periods. However, for a long time, 
both she and her husband were underemployed at salaries significantly less than 
9 
 
previous salaries. Applicant's financial problems stem from her unemployment followed 
by underemployment. She is a trusted worker in her new position, and she is highly 
regarded. Applicant is paying her past and present obligations and living within her 
means. She has established a meaningful track record of payment of past debts. She 
took action to aggressively find employment, pay her debts, and live within her means. I 
considered that she did not deliberately provide false information on her trustworthiness 
clearance application with intent to deceive. The record evidence leaves me without 
questions and 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 her financial situation and 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:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.i:  For 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 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge