1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 --------------------------- )  ADP Case No. 10-09499 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carolyn H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care Systems Program Office 
(CHCSPO), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASD 
C3I) entered into a memorandum of agreement for DOHA to provide trustworthiness 
determinations for contractor personnel employed in Sensitive Information Systems 
Positions (ADP I/II/III) as defined in the Department of Defense (DoD) 
Regulation.5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended 
(Regulation).  
 
Applicant submitted her Questionnaires for Public Trust Position (SF 85P), on 
October 22, 2009. On January 21, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness 
concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations).  
 
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 
2 
 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); the Regulation; and the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on January 27, 2011.  She answered 
the SOR in writing on February 4, 2011, and requested a hearing before an 
Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request on February 7, 2011. Department 
Counsel was prepared to proceed on April 7, 2011, and I received the case assignment 
on May 2, 2011.  
 
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 5, 2011, and I convened the hearing as 
scheduled on May 27, 2011. The government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 5, which 
were received without objection.  Applicant testified and submitted Exhibits A through F, 
without objection. Applicant had until July 1, 2011, to submit additional documents 
pertaining to her delinquent debts. She submitted additional exhibits on July 5, 2011, to 
which the government had no objection. These exhibits were marked Ex. G to J. The 
record closed on July 5, 2011.  
 
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on June 8, 2011. Based upon a 
review of the record evidence as a whole, eligibility for a Sensitive Systems Position 
ADP I/II/III is granted. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In her Answer to the SOR Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all 
subparagraphs of ¶ 2 except the allegations contained in ¶¶ 2.b, 2.c, and 2.i, and 
provided explanations. Applicant admitted ¶ 1.a, but denied she violated a patient’s 
financial privacy. She also provided additional information to support her request for 
eligibility for a public trust position.  
 
 Applicant is 45 years old, divorced since 2000, and has two teenaged sons. She 
works for a defense contractor in the medical services business. Applicant’s net income 
each month is $1,770. All her current monthly bills are paid. She has no savings 
account. She purchased a used car last year, incurring a car loan of $11,000. Applicant 
is current on her car payments. She sold her former car to her oldest son and used his 
money to make the down payment on the car she purchased. Applicant has not sought 
financial counseling. Her former husband is obligated under the divorce decree to pay 
child support, depending on his income. The amount is currently $111.46 weekly. He 
did not pay child support for about 13 months, from June 2009 to July 10, 2010, after 
Applicant moved to her present location out of the state in which they both lived 
formerly. Applicant’s former husband owes her about $8,000 in child support, plus 
$7,000 in attorney’s fees. Applicant moved back to her home state so that she would 
have family to help her. Her mother lives near her. (Tr. 17-20, 33, 38-40, 57, 62, 76; 
Exhibit 1)  
 
 Applicant’s physician employer terminated her in July 2009 allegedly because 
she discussed a patient’s financial payment options to the patient when other persons 
were nearby. This termination occurred four weeks after Applicant informed the office 
3 
 
manager that it appeared the medical practice was double billing for its medications. 
Applicant denied doing anything wrong. She contends her firing was retaliatory action 
by her employer. Her position is supported by a statement of a former co-worker, who 
resigned from the same employer after confronting the physician with his questionable 
practices. Applicant credibly testified about her actions in that medical practice. In the 
state where that occurred, terminated workers could not claim unemployment 
insurance, according to Applicant. The only information regarding the incident is 
Applicant’s disclosure in her SF 85P in Question 12, in which she stated she disputed 
the firing. There is no government investigation information about the incident. (Tr. 31, 
63, 64; Exhibits 1, 2, F)  
 
 The SOR lists nine delinquent debts totaling $84,139. She has resolved all 
delinquent debts in some manner, including the two debts relating to the mortgages on 
her former home and the seven other debts totaling $7,189. (Tr. 22-55; Exhibits 2-5, C) 
 
 Applicant’s home in her former state of residence was foreclosed in November 
2009 when she could not pay the mortgage because of her job termination and the 
failure of her former husband to pay the child support. The debts listed in 
Subparagraphs 2.f ($14,559) and 2.g ($62,391) were for the first and second mortgages 
on that house. The house was sold at the foreclosure sale for $66,768.32. Applicant’s 
May 2011 credit report shows the debt balance is zero dollars, as does the May 2011 
and the November 2010 credit report submitted by the government. Applicant submitted 
a copy of the “Deed under Power” she signed conveying her interest in the house to the 
purchaser, a bank. (Tr. 23, 24, 32; Exhibits 2-4, C) 
 
 The debt in Subparagraph 2.h ($2,096) is a tax lien on an automobile purchase 
for which Applicant owed sales tax. Applicant originally was confused about the origin of 
the tax lien and claimed at the hearing the tax was a real estate tax and it was paid from 
escrow when the house was sold. The 2009 property tax document Applicant submitted 
shows $669.51 in real estate tax owing for the house. This tax statement shows that 
amount was paid in 2009. The tax lien does not appear on the May 2011 credit report 
submitted by Applicant. It does appear on the November 2009 credit report submitted 
by the government, but only as a tax lien, not a real estate tax lien. That credit report 
shows the lien was filed in October 2009. The lien does not appear on any other credit 
report. Applicant obtained information after the hearing showing this tax lien was for 
sales tax. The amount of the debt now is $1,539.05. Applicant is paying this tax debt at 
the rate of $25 monthly. This debt is being resolved by an installment payment 
agreement. (Tr. 23, 24, 32; Exhibits 2-4, C, I) 
 
 Applicant paid a $53 debt owed on a medical account (Subparagraph 2.c). The 
debt dated from 2006. This debt is resolved. (Tr. 26, 41, 42; Exhibits 2-5, C) 
 
 One of Applicant’s remaining debts is a utility bill for $371 from 2009 
(Subparagraph 2.a). Applicant called the company but was told it was in collection 
mode. The utility told her to contact the collection agency. Applicant is making payments 
to the utility company. Her first payment was for $50 on June 14, 2011. This debt is 
being resolved by an installment payment process. (Tr. 24; Exhibits 2-5, C, G) 
4 
 
 Applicant owes $15 on a medical account (Subparagraph 2.b). Applicant claimed 
at the hearing she could not find the origin of the debt, so she has not paid it. The debt 
is delinquent from 2005. In her subsequent exhibits, Applicant submitted a five-page 
exhibit showing she contacted the collector and submitted proof that this debt was paid 
on November 3, 2006. This debt is resolved. (Tr. 26, 47; Exhibits 2-5, C, H) 
 
 Applicant owes $272 on a credit union checking account overdraft from 2008 
(Subparagraph 2.d). Appellant contends this amount of money has been merged into 
the amount owed under Subparagraph 2.e, $4,377, on a personal loan for $5,000 she 
borrowed in 2004 to pay an attorney to represent her in a civil suit against her former 
husband for unpaid child support. Applicant claims she has a verbal agreement with this 
credit union to pay $30 monthly on these debts. She is waiting for a document to 
evidence this installment payment agreement. Applicant stopped paying on these debts 
when her child support was not paid and she lost her job in March 2009. Applicant 
submitted a post-hearing exhibit showing she is paying $30 monthly to resolve these 
two debts. These debts are being resolved by an installment payment agreement. (Tr. 
27-29, 52-54; Exhibits 2-5, C, J) 
 
 Applicant owes $5.00 on a medical debt from 2006 (Subparagraph 2.i). Applicant 
does not recognize this debt. She contacted the collection agency about it after the 
hearing. Applicant submitted an exhibit showing the debt was paid. The government’s 
November 2009 credit report shows this debt with account number 6051 and comparing 
it to the post-hearing exhibit submitted by Applicant shows the $5.00 debt is actually a 
cancelled $4.97 portion of the $15.00 debt listed in SOR Subparagraph 2.b. This debt is 
resolved because it was not a valid debt owed by Applicant. (Tr. 27, 55; Exhibits 2-5; C, 
H) 
 
 Applicant submitted two character statements. One statement is from her 
supervisor at her current employer. He evaluates her work as excellent in the 
administrative support section. She was promoted and now works in the provider 
network section and her work is again rated as excellent. The second letter is from her 
landlord for the past 17 months. He reports Applicant pays her rent promptly and 
accurately. (Tr. 13, 14; Exhibits A and B)   
 
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.)   
5 
 
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 overarching 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel and  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. 
  
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 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 
6 
 
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 seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may 
be disqualifying. None of them apply because the information supporting the allegation 
was based on Applicant’s disclosure in her SF 85P. Applicant noted as part of her 
disclosure that she disputed the basis of the termination. The government investigation 
in Exhibit 2 only discussed the financial matters, so there was no other evidence to 
support the allegation. Applicant testified credibly and persuasively that the physician’s 
office was a hostile workplace, with many employees being terminated routinely. She 
also demonstrated her firing was in retaliation for her discovery of multiple instances of 
double-billing by the physician for medications. Then Applicant supported her position 
with a letter from a nurse who worked with her in the physician’s office. The nurse also 
found questionable practices in the office and eventually quit her job because of the 
unprofessional work environment. I conclude there was no Personal Conduct for which 
Applicant is liable under this Guideline E. No disqualifying conditions are applicable. 
Consequently, no mitigating conditions need be applied either.  
 
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 conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. Two conditions might apply to the facts in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has nine delinquent debts listed in the SOR. These debts total $84,139. 
They were incurred from 2004 to 2009. AG ¶ 19 (a) and (c) apply. 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Two concerns 
might apply: 
 
(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; 
and 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant lost her job in March 2009 and her former husband stopped paying her 
the required child support. Suffering the loss of two sources of income, Applicant 
decided to move to her home state where her family could supply some financial and 
emotional support to her. The loss of employment adversely affected Applicant’s ability 
to pay her debts. The employment termination and former husband’s wrongful refusal to 
pay the court-ordered child support were circumstances beyond her control. Her home 
was foreclosed and sold by the bank. Applicant has not incurred any additional long-
term debt since 2009 that she cannot pay. The one major purchase she made was a 
late model used car in 2010 for $11,000, on which she pays regularly. She has acted 
responsibly by paying her current debts, resolving her mortgages by the sale of the 
former house, and is paying her debts through installment payment agreements. AG ¶ 
20 (b) applies.  
 
Applicant has started to pay the credit union debts at the rate of $30 monthly, 
which is an amount she can afford. The utility debt for $371 is being resolved at the rate 
of $50 monthly. The sales tax lien is being paid with an installment payment agreement 
at the $25 monthly rate. Her mortgages were resolved in 2009 by the sale of her 
foreclosed home. The $5.00 medical debt was cancelled in 2006. Applicant has 
addressed each of the nine debts in good faith and in a responsible and reasonable 
manner with the goal of resolving them. AG ¶ 20 (d) applies. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 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 relevant 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 
 
(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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  Applicant was an adult when the 
delinquent debts listed in the SOR were incurred between 2004 and 2009. Her financial 
problems were caused by her employment termination in March 2009 and her former 
husband’s refusal to pay child support for over a year. Applicant took action to recover 
those funds from him. She made changes in her state of residence to be closer to family 
to help her resolve these issues and care for her family. She moved also to obtain a 
better job. Applicant accomplished those goals and they demonstrate permanent 
behavioral changes. Applicant has not incurred other delinquent debt since 2009. 
Applicant worked to move from her former situation and improve her life. The potential 
for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress is minimal based on the total facts. 
Applicant supports herself and her family. She is well-regarded by her employer and 
has been promoted once. Before and after the hearing Applicant worked to resolve her 
debts within the restrictions of her available finances. All nine debts are resolved or 
being resolved by the installment payment plans she established.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without 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 and Financial Considerations. I conclude the “whole-person” concept for 
Applicant. 
 
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 E:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
 
  Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a to 2.i:  For Applicant 
    
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a 
Sensitive Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III). 
 
 
                                                     
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge