DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 10-01867 
  ) 
  
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: William T. O'Neil, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility 
for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On March 23, 2009, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust 
Position (SF 85P), as part of her employment with a defense contractor. On October 13, 
2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 22, 2010. 
 
1 
 
2 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on November 16, 2010. She admitted five 
allegations (1.a, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, and 1.i) and denied four allegations (1.b, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.f) 
under Guideline F. Her answer to the one allegation under Guideline E was ambiguous. 
At the hearing, she admitted the allegation. She requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 3, 
2011, and the case was assigned to me on February 22, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice 
of Hearing on April 18, 2011, for a hearing on May 3, 2011. I convened the hearing as 
scheduled. The Government offered eight exhibits which I marked and admitted into the 
record received without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 8. 
Applicant testified and submitted two exhibits which I marked and admitted into the 
record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A and B. I left the record open 
for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted two documents 
which I marked and admitted into the record as App. Ex. C and D. Department Counsel 
had no objection to the admission of the additional documents. (Gov. Ex. 9, 
Memorandum, dated May 31, 2011) DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the hearing 
on May 11, 2011.  
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant did not receive the notice of hearing until April 26, 2011, only seven 
days before the hearing. Applicant is entitled to 15 days advance notice of hearing. 
(Directive E3.1.8.) Applicant discussed with Department Counsel the hearing date of 
May 3, 2011, prior to the Notice of Hearing being mailed on April 18, 2011. Applicant 
was ready to proceed on May 3, 2011, and stated that she had sufficient time to 
prepare. She waived the 15-day notice requirement. (Tr. 7-8) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted five and denied four allegations under Guideline F. She 
provided an explanation for her admissions and denials. She admitted the allegation 
under Guideline E with explanation. Her admissions are included in my findings of fact. 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following 
essential findings of fact.   
 
 Applicant is 46 years old and is a computer technician for a defense contractor. 
She is a high school graduate with technical and communication certifications. Applicant 
served on active duty as a computer and telecommunications specialist in the United 
States Army from November 1984 until June 1991. She had two overseas assignments, 
and received an honorable discharge as a specialist (E-4). During her active duty tour, 
she held a top secret security clearance. She has never been married and has no 
children. (Tr. 21-23, 26; Gov. Ex. 1, SF 85P, dated March 23, 2009) 
 
 After leaving the Army, Applicant worked for a technology company from July 
1991 until January 1992. For six weeks in November and December 1991, the company 
did not send her a pay check and did not offer her an explanation for the delay in her 
pay. She left the company in January 1992 and started working as a computer specialist 
for a bank. Later that year, she lost her job with the bank, had issues with her 
3 
 
roommate, became destitute, and had no place to go. She used a fake gun to rob a 
bank on December 11, 1992. She used the same fake weapon and robbed a different 
bank on December 12, 1992. Applicant was apprehended after the second bank 
robbery, convicted of armed bank robbery, and sentenced to federal prison for 31 
months. She served 24 months in a federal prison and her remaining six months in a 
prison boot camp program. She was released from prison in 1996. Applicant admits that 
her actions were a mistake. (Tr. 23-26; Gov. Ex. 1, SF 85P, dated March 3, 2009)  
 
 Since her release from prison, Applicant has been gainfully employed in the 
computer field. She has been commended for her work performance by her present 
employer, and her customers have praised her for her work ethic and customer service. 
(Tr. 26-27; App. Ex. A, Work History, undated; App. Ex. B, e-mails, various dates) She 
told security investigators that her monthly net income was $2,891 with monthly 
expenses of $1,989, leaving $908 in discretionary funds. (Gov. Ex. 2, Testimonies, 
dated November 4, 2010 at 4) 
 
 Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated May 30, 2009; Gov. Ex. 5, dated August 24, 
2009; Gov. Ex. 6, dated April 3, 2010; and Gov. Ex. 7, dated February 2, 2011) show 
the following delinquent debts for Applicant: two medical debts in collection each for $80 
(SOR 1.a and 1.b); a credit union charged off debt for $12,386 (SOR 1.c); a bank debt 
charged off for $2,283 (SOR 1.d); a credit card debt charged off for $115 (SOR 1.e); two 
judgments in favor of a credit union for $4,849 (SOR 1.f), and $16,121 (SOR 1.g); a 
debt of $1,010 placed for collection by a landlord (SOR 1.h); and an insurance debt 
placed for collection for $144 (SOR 1.i).  
 
 In response to questions from security investigators, Applicant denied knowledge 
of most of the debt. She stated she would try to resolve the debts she knew about. She 
listed the cause of her financial problems as mismanagement of her money. She stated 
she is capable of meeting her financial obligations and has the ability to pay her debts. 
Her other accounts are paid as agreed. (Gov. Ex. 2, Testimonies, dated November 4, 
2009) She also stated that she was consolidating some debts and would pay her debts 
in the near future. (Gov. Ex. 3, Answers to Interrogatories, dated June 7, 2010) At the 
hearing, Applicant stated that even though she has been gainfully employed since 1996, 
she did not have sufficient funds to meet her needs. She is waiting for the outcome of 
her request for access to sensitive information before deciding if she will pay some of 
the debts. (Tr. 41-43) 
 
 The medical debts at SOR 1.a and 1.b are for physical therapy received by 
Applicant. She stated that she paid the charges in cash when she received the 
treatment. To clear the debts, Applicant paid them again and provided receipts for the 
payments. (Tr. 28-29; App. Ex. C, Letter, dated May 27, 2011; App. Ex D and E, 
Receipts, dated May 27, 2011) 
 
 Three debts, SOR 1.c, 1.f, and 1.g, are listed with the same credit union. 
Applicant had a loan from the credit union for the purchase of a car. In 2001, the car 
broke down while Applicant still had an outstanding balance of approximately $4,000 on 
the car loan. She purchased another car by using an another loan from the same credit 
4 
 
union. She thought the dealer had consolidated the first loan with the second loan. She 
paid on the second loan for approximately two years. When she did not receive an 
expected pay raise and her living expenses increased, she no longer could afford the 
new car loan. She turned in the new car for repossession. After the vehicle was sold, 
she was advised by the credit union that she had a remaining debt for that car of 
$12,000 (SOR 1.c) and $4,000 on the original car loan (SOR 1.f). The third credit union 
debt (SOR 1.g) is a combination of these two debts. She has not made arrangements to 
pay the debts or made any payments to the credit union. (Tr. 29-32, 38-39)  
 
 Applicant attributes the $2,283 bank debt at SOR 1.d to a fraudulent money 
scheme. She was told by a company that they would send her some money orders that 
she would cash, and send them the funds less a certain percentage she kept for her 
efforts. She deposited the money orders in her bank account. When she went to 
withdraw the funds, she was told that the money orders were not honored and the bank 
had charged her account for the amount of the money orders. She cashed in her 401K 
account in 2006 to reimburse the bank and close the account. The account was paid in 
full. (Tr. 32-34, 39; App. Ex. F, Letter, May 31, 2011; App. Ex. G, Bank Paid in Full 
Letter, dated May 26, 2011) 
 
 The credit card debt at SOR 1.e is for tires Applicant purchased. Applicant tried 
to contact the collection agency but could not locate any contact information. She also 
has not contacted the company where she purchased the tires. The debt has not been 
paid. (Tr. 39-40)  
 
 Applicant does not know why she has a debt to the insurance company for the 
debt at SOR 1.i. She cancelled her car insurance when she got insurance with another 
company. She has not contacted or paid the insurance company for this debt. (Tr. 35, 
41) 
 
  Applicant moved from an apartment a month before the lease terminated. The 
landlord sent her a letter informing her that they would sell all the items left in the 
apartment. The items were sold but the debt does not reflect the value of those items. It 
is only for the amount of rent for the final two months of the lease. She has not paid the 
debt since the landlord sold all of her belongings to satisfy the debt. She has not been in 
contact with the landlord concerning the debt. (Tr. 36-37, 40-41)  
 
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 
5 
 
the right to the procedures contained in the Directive before any final unfavorable 
access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)  
  
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust or a sensitive position, 
the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the 
AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. The entire process is a 
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” 
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the 
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. (AG ¶ 2(c)) 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
[sensitive] information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable trustworthiness decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of 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 
6 
 
one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects 
of life. 
 
 A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a public trust position. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations. Applicant’s delinquent debts, as established by credit reports and 
Applicant’s statements, testimony, and admissions, 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 mismanaged her money and 
could not meet her financial obligations. The information indicates both an inability and 
an unwillingness to satisfy debts. 
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) ¶ 20(a) (the 
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), and FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person’s 
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical 
emergency, or a death, divorce, or separations and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances). These mitigating conditions do not apply to Applicant's 
financial problems. Some of the debts were paid but others have not been addressed 
and are current debts. Applicant presented no information to establish that the debts 
were incurred under unusual circumstances or by circumstances beyond her control. In 
fact, the evidence shows that the debts were incurred under normal circumstances. 
Applicant has not acted responsibly towards the debts. She has not attempted to 
contact some of the creditors, and she has not paid many of the debts. Applicant has 
not established a pattern of acting responsibly towards her finances, so her past-due 
debts cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 I have considered FC MC ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving 
counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being 
resolved or is under control). This mitigating condition does not apply. Applicant has not 
presented any documents or testified concerning any financial counseling she 
requested or received. Her financial problems are not being resolved and are not 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. Good faith means acting in a way that shows 
reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A 
systematic method of handling debts is needed. Applicant must establish a "meaningful 
7 
 
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. An applicant is not required to establish that she paid each and every debt 
listed. All that is required is that Applicant demonstrates an established plan to resolve 
her financial problems and show she has taken significant actions to implement that 
plan.  
 
Applicant established that she paid the two medical debts in the SOR (1.a and 
1.b) and an account to a bank (1.d). However, she had not paid any of the remaining 
debts. In fact, she has not contacted the creditors to settle the debts or established 
payments plans for the remaining SOR debts. Applicant has not acted responsibly 
towards her debts and has not presented sufficient information to mitigate security 
concerns for financial considerations. Her finances create and establish a public trust 
concern. 
 
Guideline E, 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 classified information. (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.  
 
 Applicant was convicted of bank robbery in 1992 and served almost three years 
in federal prison. She was destitute at the time and facing financial problems at the time 
she committed the robberies. These fact raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 
(PC DC) AG ¶ 16(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 know, may affect the person's personal, professional, or 
community standing,).  
 
 The Government produced sufficient evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions as required in AG ¶ 16(e). The burden shifted to Applicant to produce 
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the trustworthiness concerns under 
financial considerations. An applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation 
or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never shifts to the 
Government. Applicant raised conditions that may mitigate the concern 
 
 I have considered Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC) AG ¶ 17(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 is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); AG ¶17(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 
8 
 
behavior is unlikely to recur); and AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to 
reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress). These 
mitigating conditions apply.  
 
 Applicant's conviction for bank robbery was almost 20 years ago. At the time, she 
was facing severe financial problems, had lost her job, and had no place to go. She was 
under personal stress. She successfully completed her prison sentence including a six-
month prison boot camp program in 1996. She has been gainfully employed since then 
and has not had any other law enforcement issues. While bank robbery is a serious 
offense, the offense happened long ago under unusual stressful circumstances that will 
not recur. She acknowledged her poor behavior. She took positive rehabilitative steps 
through schooling in computer and communications technologies resulting in steady 
employment which reduced or eliminated vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or 
duress. Applicant mitigated trustworthiness concerns for her personal conduct 
associated with a bank robbery by her rehabilitation efforts and clean criminal record 
since 1996. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider 
the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a public 
trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.   
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant served 
over seven years on active duty in the Army and held a top secret security clearance. I 
considered that Applicant is a highly regarded employee with a good work record. 
However, Applicant has not established that she took positive action to resolve her 
financial problems. Some of her debts have been paid, but most are still outstanding. 
For most of the debts, she has not even attempted to contact the creditors. Applicant 
has not established a history of responsible resolution of her debts. She has presented 
sufficient information to mitigate the trustworthiness concern for her personal conduct 
based on an armed bank robbery charge in 1992. The record evidence leaves me with 
9 
 
questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a public trust 
position. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the 
trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial situation, but has mitigated the 
personal conduct trustworthiness concerns.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b:  For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.c:   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.e - 1.f:  Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph1.g;   For Applicant (Duplicate of 1.c and 1.f) 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.h - 1.i:  Against 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 not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge