1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 09-06925
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P) on
December 1, 2008. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing the trustworthiness concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) on July 8,
2010. 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 Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security
Program, dated January 1987, as amended (Regulation); and the Adjudicative
Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG)
implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on July 29, 2010. She answered the
SOR in writing on August 18, 2010, and requested a hearing before an administrative
judge. DOHA received the request and Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
GE 1; AE A - AE D; Tr. 20-21, 60.1
2
on November 8, 2010. I received the case assignment on January 3, 2011. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on January 6, 2011 for a hearing on January 27, 2011, which
I cancelled on January 21, 2011. DOHA issued a second notice of hearing on January
28, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on February 17, 2011. The
Government offered exhibits marked as GE 1 through 11, which were received and
admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. She submitted exhibits
marked as AE A through AE M, which were received and admitted into evidence
without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 25,
2011. I held the record open until March 10, 2011, for Applicant to submit additional
matters. Applicant timely submitted AE N to AE W, without objection. The record closed
on March 10, 2011.
Procedural Ruling
Notice
At the hearing, Applicant indicated she received the hearing notice shortly after it
was issued on January 28, 2011. (Tr. at 6) Applicant agreed to proceed with the
hearing. (Tr. at 7) 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, dated August 18, 2010, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.q, 1.s - 1.u, 1.w, 1.x, 1.aa, 1.bb, 1.dd, 1.ee, 1.gg, 1.hh, and 2.c -
2.g of the SOR. She admitted the factual allegation in 2.a and 2.b with qualifications.
She denied the factual allegations in the remaining SOR allegations. She also provided
additional information to support her request for eligibility for a public trust position.  
Applicant, who is 38 years old, works as a warehouse specialist for a
Department of Defense contractor. She began her job on December 1, 2008 as an on-
call staffer. Her employer converted her to a full-time permanent position in October
2010. Her managers describe her as a reliable and dependable employee, who arrives
at work everyday on time with a positive attitude. She works hard, and she has earned
the trust and respect of management and her co-workers. She is willing to learn new
materials and assume new tasks. Her management recommendations reflect a positive
experience with her in the work place.1
At age 13, Applicant left home and began a lifestyle which involved the regular
use of methamphetamines, an illegal drug. In July 1990, when she was 17 years old,
her oldest son was born. In April 1991, the court directed his father to pay her $327 a
month in child support, to pay two outstanding medical bills of $125, to maintain their
son on a health insurance policy through the father’s employment, and to pay one-half
of any medical bills not paid by health insurance. Her son’s father did not comply with
the court order. Applicant filed the necessary documents with the court to enforce the
support payments ordered and to collect the unpaid child support due her in 1996 and
GE 3; AE W ; Tr. 17, 67.2
AE U; Tr. 66.3
AE V; Tr. 24-25.4
GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 40-43.5
3
1998, without success. Her son’s father has never paid her any child support and owes
her over $70,000 in back child support.2
Applicant married her first husband in 1991 and divorced him 1994. They had a
daughter, who is now 18 years old. In 1994, Applicant filed court papers, seeking a
judgment establishing child support and a parental relationship, which the court granted
on August 18, 1994. The court ordered her former husband to provide health insurance
coverage for their daughter, as required by law, and reserved a determination of the
amount of child support to be paid for a later date. Later, the court established a
monthly child support payment, but the amount is unknown. In 2005, the State filed a
court action to recover costs of services provided to Applicant’s daughter, and its
request was granted in an order dated October 2, 2006. In 2007, Child Support
Services notified Applicant that it could not reopen her case against her former husband
and the father of her oldest daughter because it could not locate him. Her first husband
did not comply with the court order on child support and health insurance.3
In 1995, Applicant gave birth to a second daughter and in 1996 she gave birth to
a second son. Shortly after her younger daughter’s birth, a serious stomach problem
developed. Her daughter had surgery as a baby to correct the problem and required
yearly medical examinations to monitor her health. Applicant believed that the State
medicaid system paid the medical bills for her younger daughter’s care. In 1999, the
County Family Services division filed the necessary court papers for payment of child
support by the father of Applicant’s younger children. In September 1999, the court
ordered the children’s father to pay $808 a month in child support, to pay $75 a month
towards his child support arrearage of $18,261, and to provide health insurance
coverage for both children. The children’s father provided information on health
insurance coverage to the court. Applicant has received child support for these children.
Currently, her younger daughter lives with her and her younger son lives with his father.
With this arrangement, she does not receive child support.4
In September 1997, Applicant and her then boyfriend walked into a local store to
purchase goods. He selected an item to buy her for her birthday. When they reached
the cashier, he presented the cashier with a credit card. The store authorization system
denied the card because it had been stolen, which Applicant did not know. Her
boyfriend fled the store when security came. She remained until the police came. The
police charged her with forgery and receiving stolen property because the present she
was to receive was considered stolen. She pled guilty to receiving stolen property, and
the court sentenced her to time served, which was 11 days.5
GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 43-44.6
Tr. 32-33, 35, 53.7
GE 3; Tr.  44-45.8
Tr. 19, 47-49.9
4
In November 1997, Applicant agreed to watch a neighbor’s children for a few
hours one day. After watching her neighbor’s children for nearly a week, she decided to
retrieve her VCR from her neighbor’s home for all the children to watch movies. She
had her son go through a window in the neighbor’s house and retrieve the VCR. When
the neighbor came home, the neighbor discovered the VCR missing and called the
police. After investigating the loss, the police charged Applicant with burglary. When
she appeared in court, the court dismissed the burglary charge on the grounds of
insufficient cause.6
In 1997 or 1998, when he was seven years old, Applicant’s oldest son was hit by
a drunken driver while riding his bicycle and suffered serious injuries to his leg. She did
not have medical insurance. She met with the hospital social worker, who told her not to
worry about the bills, and had her complete paperwork for payment of the bills. She
believed the medical bills had been paid, as she never received any bills. In her view,
some of the old medical bills listed in the SOR may be related to his treatment.7
In January 1999, the police arrested and charged Applicant with manufacturing a
controlled substance and vehicle theft. She appeared in court and the charges were
dismissed. While in court, Applicant indicated that she wanted to change her life. Two
police officers heard her statement and offered to take her immediately to a
rehabilitation center. She agreed.8
For the next two and one-half years, Applicant stayed at the rehabilitation center.
She stopped her drug use, earned her general equivalency diploma, and received
training as a cosmetologist. From this program, she learned a better way of life, how to
live without drugs, and fun did not mean one must go out and party. She learned how to
work and communicate with her children. She described this program as a very positive
experience for her. Since 1999, she has used drugs on one occasion. She continues to
meet once a month with a support group from her rehabilitation program.9
Following completion of her drug treatment program, Applicant worked as a
cosmetologist from 2001 until 2003, earning $10 an hour. The salon where she worked
closed in 2003. About this time, she began dating her second husband, who owned a
trucking company. She worked for the trucking company from 2003 until early 2007.
She did not earn a salary at this job. Rather, the business income paid their living
expenses. She began working for a national delivery service in March 2007, earning $9
an hour. The company later hired her into a full-time position, which paid approximately
$50,000. In May 2008, the company laid her off. She next worked in a deli, earning $9
GE 1; Tr. 19-21, 60-64.10
GE 3; Tr. 45-46, 47.11
Tr. 64-65.12
Tr. 28-29, 34, 50.13
Id. 51-53.14
5
an hour, for four months. She was unemployed from October 2008 until December
2008, when she began her current employment.10
Applicant started dating her second husband in 2003. Before she married him in
2006, two incidents occurred. In 2003 or 2004, Applicant attempted to cash her child
support check at a local checking cashing establishment. The proprietor advised her
that someone was attempting to pass bad checks under her name. She provided her
identification, and the employees searched her belongings. The employees found
counterfeit bills in her purse, which her then boyfriend (later second husband) had
placed in her purse without her knowledge and called the police. The police arrested
her and charged her with false record and possession of counterfeit bills. She pled
guilty to the counterfeit bills charge. She served 17 days in jail and 27 in the alternative
work program. She stated that she was afraid of her boyfriend and would not turn him in
to the police. Applicant has not been arrested since 2004.  11
In 2005, Applicant obtained a restraining order against her boyfriend. The
restraining order ended when she decided to marry this boyfriend in 2006. She
separated from him in April 2007, and their divorce was finalized in October 2007.12
Applicant recalls being involved in two car accidents. She does not have any
recall about the specifics of the first accident, except that she did not have car
insurance. The second car accident occurred on Christmas Eve, when she rolled her
minivan. She provided four possible dates: 2003, 2004, 2006, or 2007. She did not
receive any money from either accident, and acknowledged that the second accident
was her fault. She admitted that the 2002 judgment obtained against her stemmed from
the first accident. She does not remember getting court papers in this case.13
In 2007, Applicant’s oldest son sustained injuries to his other leg after being hit
by a car while walking in a crosswalk. Her son was in high school and living with his
father when this second accident occurred. She thought all medical bills related to this
accident had been paid. Her son received a financial settlement.14
As an on-call employee in her current job, Applicant earned $21 an hour, but did
not have any benefits such as health insurance. As a full-time employee, she now
earns $18.12 an hour and receives benefits, including health, dental and optical
insurance coverage. Her net monthly pay averages $2,200 and her monthly expenses
average $3,100. Applicant supports three children and one granddaughter. Her 20-
AE Q; Tr. 22-24.15
GE 3; GE 6-GE 11; AE O; AE R-AE T; Tr. 27-32, 36-38, 58.16
GE 1; GE 3; Tr. 40, 54-60.17
GE 3; Tr. 57-58.18
Tr. 41, 50, 53-54, 83.19
6
year-old son’s employer recently laid him off. She is currently the only wage earner in
the household.15
The SOR lists 34 debts from the March 21, 2009 credit report.  The credit reports
dated October 28, 2009 and December 31, 2009 reflect that Applicant owes 12 debts.
The January 27, 2010 and the March 22, 2010 credit reports list 11 debts, and the
November 8, 2010 credit report lists nine debts for Applicant. Most of the debts
removed from her credit reports are old, closed accounts and relate to medical bills. In
the last three years, Applicant has paid her current expenses. Applicant denied owing
seven SOR debts. She verified that she paid the debt in SOR allegation 1.v in 2008 and
several other past-due debts not listed in the SOR. She also verified that her education
loans listed in SOR allegations 1.b and 1.d are paid, except for $60. Applicant
acknowledged that most of the debts listed in the SOR are not paid. She expressed a
willingness to pay her debts, but advised that she lacked the financial resources to do
so.16
When she completed her trustworthiness application on December 1, 2008,
Applicant answered “no” to the questions about judgments against her and financial
obligations more than 180 days delinquent. She limited her answer with the statement
“not that Im aware of.” Applicant denied intentionally falsifying her answer to these
questions. She did not realize the extent of her credit problems, although when she left
her husband in 2007, she knew there were some unpaid bills. After leaving her
husband and before she completed her SF 85P, she paid several unpaid bills from her
marriage. In the past, she never thought about her bills, including her unpaid bills. In the
last 10 years, she moved five times, usually without leaving a forwarding address
because of domestic violence. She never thought to leave a forwarding address for
bills.  17
Applicant did not know about the judgments listed in SOR allegation 1.a and a
$1,374 judgment not listed in the SOR. She is aware of the $439 judgment a friend
obtained against her in 2009 after she completed her SF 85P. The friend moved, and
Applicant does not know where this individual is now living. She has no understanding
of how debts are bought and sold nor did she realize she could challenge her debts with
the credit reporting agencies until the hearing.18
Applicant’s past drug use created memory loss for her. Now that she no longer
uses drugs, her memory is improving. She has not experienced memory loss in recent
years. She has not received credit counseling.  19
7
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
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.
8
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty
of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations
is set out in AG & 18:  
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 ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and especially the following:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
For many years, Appellant lacked the resources to pay her debts. Thus, she has
significant financial problems from her unpaid bills. Most of the debts have not been
resolved. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate
trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the
disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago,
was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstance that it is unlikely to recur and
does not cast doubt on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment.@ Many of the debts listed in the SOR became delinquent between five and
nine years ago or longer. A large portion of these debts relate to medical bills for
injuries from car accidents. Applicant believed these bills had been paid under
medicaid, as she did not have medical insurance. She now has medical insurance,
which means that her medical bills will be paid in the future. These circumstances
creating her medical bills are no longer extant. I find that many of her debts occurred
under unusual circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and it does not raise concerns
about her current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. This mitigating condition
is partially applicable because not all her debts occurred under unusual circumstances
and such condiitons may recur because she has a negative cash flow each month.
9
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe conditions that resulted in the
financial problem 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.@ Applicant’s financial
problems arose because she earned less than $25,000 a year for many years, while
supporting herself and four children. She did not work for short periods of time over the
last 10 years nor did she receive child support from the fathers of her two oldest
children. When she separated from her second husband, she paid several unpaid bills
incurred when her income increased in 2008. She, however, has not resolved many of
the debts listed in the SOR. I find this mitigating condition partially applicable. 
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Applicant has not sought financial
counseling. She paid her education debt and one other small debt listed in the SOR.
She otherwise has not resolved her past delinquent SOR debts. This mitigating
condition has some applicability.
Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ This mitigating
condition is not applicable as Applicant has not contacted the creditors listed in the
SOR to pay her debts or set up a payment plan.
AG ¶ 20(e) applies when “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the
legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of
actions to resolve the issue.” Applicant denies six debts, but she has not provided
documentation showing she challenged the validity of the debts with the credit reporting
agencies. Thus, this mitigating condition is not applicable.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and especially the following:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-20
23133 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
The allegations in 2.f and 2.g involve the same incident.21
10
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing; and,
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity.
For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission, concealment or falsification in her
answer must be deliberate. The Government established that Applicant omitted a
material fact from her SF 85P when she answered “no” to Questions 22a, about
judgments against her, and 22b, about debts over 180 days delinquent. This
information is material to the evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness and honesty. In
her response, she denies, however, that she had an intent to hide this information from
the Government. When a falsification allegation is controverted, the Government has
the burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or
prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred. An
administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine
whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or
state of mind at the time the omission occurred.20
When she completed her SF 85P in December 2008, Applicant did not know
about the two judgments obtained against her because she had never received
notification from the court, in part because she moved without leaving a forwarding
address. She acknowledged that some debts existed when she left her marriage, which
she resolved before she completed her SF 85P. Because of these actions, she qualified
her “no” response as she was unaware of other unpaid debts. At the time she
completed her SF 85P, she was unaware of the extent of her past financial problems as
she had not paid attention to her bills in the past. Her current bills are paid. She did not
intentionally falsify her answers to Questions 22a and 22b. The Government has not
established intentional falsification, and SOR allegations 2.a and 2.b are found in favor
of Applicant.
Prior to her decision to enter drug rehabilitation, the police arrested Applicant on
several occasions for her conduct or for conduct connected to others involved in
criminal conduct. Since she completed her drug rehabilitation program, she has been
arrested on one occasion as the result of the conduct of her boyfriend. The
Government has established its case for SOR allegations 2.c through 2.g  under AG21
¶¶ 16(e) and 16(g). 
11
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I have
considered all the conditions, and especially the following:
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; and,
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules
and regulations.
The majority of Applicant’s arrests occurred before she entered her drug
rehabilitation program and can be connected to her impaired judgment from her drug
use. Since completing her rehabilitation program in 2001, the police arrested her once.
She pled guilty to one charge and accepted her punishment. She no longer associates
with individuals involved in drugs or criminal conduct. She works regularly and provides
support for her children. She has never denied her past conduct and could not be
pressured because of it. She has mitigated the Government’s trustworthiness concerns
under Guideline E.
Whole-Person Concepts 
Under the whole-person concept, the 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) 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. 
12
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. The decision to grant or
deny a trustworthiness determination requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors,
both favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a trustworthiness
concern is established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an
applicant’s eligibility for a trustworthiness clearance should not be made as punishment
for specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence
of record to decide if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate
trustworthiness concern.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. At age 13, Applicant left home and
began a lifestyle involving drugs. She had four children by the age of 23, no husband,
no high school diploma, and little financial ability to support herself and her children. In
1999, she decided to change her life and entered a drug rehabilitation program. She
committed herself to this program and made substantial improvements in her attitude
and relationship with her children. She continues to seek support from other graduates
of her rehabilitation program. Over the last 10 years, Applicant has changed the
direction of her life. She works regularly and when she loses a job, she seeks out other
employment. She is raising three of her children on her own, without financial
assistance from their fathers. She has changed her friends and stayed out of trouble
with the police.
In the past, Applicant lacked the financial resources to pay her expenses. She
neglected her bills and had little concern about unpaid bills. She works steadily and
advises that she pays her monthly bills, which are higher than her monthly income.
Although she has not provided evidence which shows how she pays her expenses each
month, the credit reports support her statement as there are no recent unpaid bills. Her
son worked until recently and may have contributed to household finances, but that fact
is not known.  She has no money to pay her debts nor does she have a plan to pay her
debts. She is owed a substantial amount of back child support from the fathers of two of
her children, which would help resolve her debts. She is not likely to ever collect this
money, so it is not available to help resolve her old, past-due debts. She indicated a
willingness to resolve her debts; however, a future intent to pay is not sufficient to
mitigate the Government’s concerns. Many of her debts are very old and barred from
collection under state statute of limitations. The DOHA Appeal Board prohibits an
administrative judge from using state statute of limitations or staleness of debts to
mitigate trustworthiness concerns. Many of her debts are so old that the debts have
been dropped from her credit reports, making payment in the future difficult. Again, this
is a factor which cannot be considered in determining Applicant’s eligibility for a
trustworthiness determination. Because so many of Applicant’s debts have not been
paid and she has no plans in place to pay any of the debts due to her lack of financial
resources, she has not mitigated the Government’s security concerns about her
finances.
13
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising from her personal
conduct, but she has not mitigated the financial considerations concern. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e-1.u: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w-1.gg: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g: For 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.
                                              
                                                             
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge