1 As defined in Chapter 3 and Appendix 10 of DoD Regulation 5220.2-R, as amended (Regulation).
2 Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ADP Case No. 09-05289
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued more than $20,000 in delinquent debt and deliberately made a
false statement to the Government about her finances. She failed to mitigate the
security concerns raised by her financial problems and her personal conduct.
Applicant’s request for a position of trust is denied. 
On June 26, 2008, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions
(SF 85P) to obtain eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position1 for her job with a defense
contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background investigation,
adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant interrogatories2 to clarify or augment information obtained in her background
investigation. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and Applicant’s
3 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.
4 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
Pending official revision of the Directive, they take precedence over the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the
Directive.
2
responses to the interrogatories, DOHA adjudicators were unable to make a preliminary
affirmative finding3 that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant’s request for a position of trust. On June 24, 2010, DOHA issued to Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which, if proven, raise security concerns
addressed in the adjudicative guidelines (AG)4 for financial considerations (Guideline F)
and personal conduct (Guideline E).
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on November 10, 2010. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on
November 16, 2010, I convened a hearing in this matter on December 8, 2010. The
parties appeared as scheduled. The Government presented five exhibits that were
admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 5. Applicant testified on her
own behalf. I left the record open after the hearing to allow Applicant time to submit
additional relevant information. (Tr. 81 - 83) The record closed on December 20 when I
received her post-hearing submission, which has been admitted without objection as
Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
December 28, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $21,735 for 39
unpaid debts (SOR 1.a - 1.mm). Applicant denied SOR 1.m, 1.o, 1.q, and 1.o - 1.z. She
admitted the remaining allegations, and claimed that the debts at SOR 1.e and 1.f are
the same debt. 
Under Guideline E, the Government alleged that she intentionally made a false
statement to the Government when she answered “no” to SF 85P question 22B (Are
you now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation? Include loans or
obligations funded or guaranteed by the Federal Government.) Applicant admitted this
allegation. (Tr. 13 - 14) Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact.
Having reviewed Applicant’s response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make
the following additional findings of relevant fact.
Applicant is 44 years old and is employed by a defense contractor for work that
requires access to sensitive automated information to perform her duties as a customer
service representative. She graduated from college in 1986 with a degree in computer
science (Gx. 1; Tr. 10), and she has worked for her current employer since September
1999 in a variety of positions. In 2004, she submitted a security clearance application
(SF 86) to acquire a clearance for one of those positions. In October 2003, she was
interviewed by a Government investigator as part of the ensuing background
investigation. However, she later moved to a position that did not require a clearance
3
and the investigation was terminated without a final decision about her suitability for
access. (Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Tr. 6 - 7, 46 - 47, 77)
After Applicant submitted her SF 85P in June 2008, investigators obtained a
credit bureau report, which attributed to Applicant numerous unpaid and past-due debts
dating back to November 2001. Information obtained during the background
investigation showed that Applicant owed the debts alleged in the SOR, which total
$21,735. (Gx. 4; Gx. 5) However, in response to the SOR and in her testimony at the
hearing, Applicant asserted that the debts alleged at SOR 1.f, 1.n, and 1.r, which total
$980, are duplicates of other alleged debts. Department Counsel did not contest her
assertions, and a review of Gx. 4 and Gx. 5 tends to show they are duplicate debts.
Accordingly, SOR 1.f, 1.n, and 1.r are resolved for the Applicant.
Applicant also asserted that she was disputing the balance due for the debt at
SOR 1.b, which is for past-due rent of $2,842. Applicant claimed that she only owes one
month unpaid rent of $540, but that the landlord creditor is claiming, without justification,
that she owes for the balance of her lease after she was evicted in June 2006. (Answer;
Gx. 2; Tr.  34 - 37, 55 - 56) Applicant did not submit any documents to corroborate her
dispute of this debt.
Applicant also denied the debt alleged at SOR 1.x. She claims that she paid this
debt, which is a collection account for an unpaid cell phone account with a balance of
$1,347. However, she did not provide any information to corroborate her claim.
Applicant denied the debts at SOR 1.m, 1.o, 1.q, 1.v, 1.w, 1.y, and 1.z because
she did not recognize the creditors. However, the debts are documented in her credit
reports. Further, she discussed some of the creditors for these debts when she was
interviewed in 2003, and when she was interviewed in 2009. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 5; Tr. 63 -
64)
Applicant owes past-due rent (SOR 1.b) for an apartment she leased from 2002
until she was evicted in June 2006. She had been absent from that apartment for
several months as she recovered from an operation in another town. Most of her
furniture and appliances were rented from a national chain, to whom the debts at SOR
1.aa, 1.bb, and 1.dd - 1.ii (totaling about $4,208) are owed. When Applicant returned to
her apartment it was empty and she was unable to determine whether she had been
robbed or if the landlord had cleared the residence for re-let. Applicant’s position
regarding these debts is that the rental company has insurance, so she does not have
to pay for the rentals. However, she did not corroborate her claim, and she did not
explain why she did not make arrangements for her belongings (e.g., she did not have
her own renter’s insurance) if she knew she would be gone for such a long time.
(Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Gx. 5; Tr. 40 - 41, 66 - 70)
Applicant also owes about $1,388 for four medical debts (SOR 1.i - 1.l)incurred in
2008 when she had what she calls a “mild heart attack.” These debts represent the
costs that her medical insurance (an 80/20 plan) did not pay. They have been
consolidated as one debt for which she intended to start paying $20 monthly in January
2011. (Answer; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 38, 60 - 61, 74 - 75) 
5 Regulation, ¶ C3.6.15. 
6 Regulation, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 
7 Regulation, ¶ C8.2.1. 
4
Applicant was interviewed about her debts on May 29, 2009, and discussed all of
the debts listed in the SOR. She explained that her financial problems arose because of
her obligation to care for her mother, who suffers from diabetes. Applicant further
averred that she would make arrangements with all of her creditors to make what
payments she could afford. (Gx. 2) Aside from the information about her medical debts,
she has not corroborated her claims of multiple small monthly payments to several of
her creditors. I left the record open for post-hearing submissions on this issue. (Tr. 81 -
83)
Applicant was also interviewed about her debts in 2003. In a signed, sworn
statement, she stated that her financial problems began in 2000, when her mother was
diagnosed with diabetes. Applicant stated that she had to take out several personal and
payday loans to make ends meet. She indicated that she would obtain a credit report
and make arrangements to repay her creditors. (Gx. 3)
In June 2008, in response to SF 85P question 22.b (Are you now over 180 days
delinquent on any loan or financial obligation?), Applicant answered “no,” thereby
omitting all of the past-due obligations documented in her credit history. She admitted
the allegation (SOR 2.a) that she intentionally withheld this relevant, adverse
information from the Government. However, in testimony, she denied any intent to
deceive (Tr. 52 - 53) When she applied for a security clearance in 2003, Applicant
apparently omitted her past-due debts from her SF 86. In her June 2003, Applicant
denied intentionally omitting that information because she did not think she was
delinquent on her debts at the time. (Gx. 3)
Applicant is a good employee. She has been recognized for her customer service
work at least twice, and she receives above-average performance evaluations. Personal
and professional references hold her in high regard for her hard work, generosity, and
dedication to her job. (Ax. A)
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I/II/III are classified as “sensitive positions.”5 In
deciding whether a person should be assigned to an ADP position, it must be
determined that his or her loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that it is
“clearly consistent with the interests of national security” to do so.6 The Regulation also
requires that DoD contractor personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the
Directive before any adverse determination may be made.7
8 Directive. 6.3.
5
The Directive requires that each decision be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,8
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies in the adjudicative
guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the
new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of eligibility for a position of trust.
The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a position of trust for an
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one is entitled to a
position of trust, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. A person who has
access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government
based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling interest in
ensuring applicants possess the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of
one who will protect sensitive information as his or her own. Any reasonable doubt
about an applicant’s suitability for access should be resolved in favor of the
Government.
Analysis
Financial
The Government’s information is sufficient to raise a security concern about
Applicant’s finances, which is stated in AG ¶ 18, is that:
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
6
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
The Government’s information, as well as Applicant’s responses to DOHA
interrogatories, and in response to the SOR established that Applicant has been
experiencing financial problems characterized by chronic delinquent debt for several
years. Even after reducing the total owed by subtracting the duplicates alleged at SOR
1.f, 1.n, and 1.r, which total $980, and accepting that the debt at SOR 1.b is actually
$540 instead of $2,842 as alleged, the record shows that Applicant currently owes
nearly $20,000 in delinquent debts. Some of her accounts have been past-due since
2002. Accordingly, the record requires application of the disqualifying conditions listed at
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations).
By contrast, the record does not support application of any of the mitigating
conditions at AG ¶ 20. Because her debts are current, multiple, and have gone largely
unaddressed since 2003, the mitigating condition at 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 cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment) does not apply. 
Applicant’s claim that her financial problems were caused by the need to care for
her mother, I have considered AG ¶ 20(b) (the 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). However, this condition does not
apply because these circumstances have been ongoing since 2000, yet Applicant did
not show how she has acted responsibly to adjust her finances to accommodate her
circumstances. After a decade, she can reasonably be expected to do so.
The record does not support the application of the mitigating conditions at 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) or AG ¶
20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts). As to AG ¶ 20(c), Applicant did not establish that she has sought or
received any outside help with her finances. Nor did she show that her current finances
are sound. As to AG ¶ 20(d), Applicant told investigators in 2003 and in 2008 that she
would make and document arrangements to satisfy her debts. Aside from her
information about her four medical debts, there is no reliable information to support her
claims that she had reached agreements to resolve her debts.
Finally, Applicant did not corroborate the disputes she claimed to have with some
of her creditors. Accordingly, the mitigating condition at AG ¶ 20(e) (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) does not apply. On balance, Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns about her finances.
7
Personal Conduct
The Government’s information is also sufficient to raise a security concern about
Applicant’s personal conduct, which is stated at AG ¶ 15, as follows:
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.
Specifically, it is clear from this record that Applicant deliberately withheld from
her SF 85P relevant information about her financial problems. Although in her testimony
she denied any intent to deceive, it is unreasonable to conclude that she did not know
that she had debts that were more than 180 days past-due when she completed her
questionnaire. Her financial problems have been ongoing for ten years, and she was
previously confronted about a similar omission from an SF 86 she submitted in 2003.
The question she falsified is not complicated, and Applicant, a college graduate, did not
indicate that she had trouble understanding the question. All of the information probative
of her intent at the time she completed the SF 85P shows her omission of her debts was
deliberate. Thus, the record requires application of the disqualifying condition at AG ¶
16(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 qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities).
By contrast, she has not done anything to correct her omission. If anything, she
tried to hide her financial problems in 2003 and in 2008, so it cannot be safely said that
she will not attempt to misrepresent herself to the Government in the future. Finally,
deliberately making a false statement to the Government is not a minor infraction. It is
potentially a violation of federal law, and it is inconsistent with basic tenets of DoD’s
personnel security system. Accordingly, this record does not support application of any
of the mitigating conditions listed at AG ¶ 17. Applicant has failed to mitigate the
adverse security concerns raised by the Government’s information about her personal
conduct.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines E and F. I have also reviewed the record before
me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 47 years
old, and she has worked for her current employer in a variety of positions since 1999.
Although her references hold her in high regard, the positive information about her
professional and personal circumstances is insufficient to outweigh the security
concerns raised by her unpaid debts and her false statements about her finances. A fair
and commonsense assessment of all of the available information shows that Applicant
8
has not resolved any of the doubts about her suitability for access to sensitive
information. Because protection of the national interest is the primary concern here,
such doubts must be resolved against the individual.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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.e, Against Applicant
1.g - 1.m, 1.o - 1.q, 
1.s - 1.mm
Subparagraphs 1.f, 1.n, 1.r: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly not consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to sensitive automated information. Request for a position
of trust is denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge