1
                                                             
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
           DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 10-04531
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred more than $23,000 in delinquent debt over the past four years.
He did not demonstrate either changed circumstances or sufficient income to resolve
those debts or remain solvent in the future. Financial security concerns were not
mitigated. Based upon a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to ADP I/II/III sensitive information is denied. 
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 Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2-
R, Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended (Regulation).
Item 5.
1
Items 1 and 2.
2
Item 3.
3
Item 4.
4
The Government submitted 12 Items in support of the SOR allegations. 5
Item 5.
6
Item 4.
7
Items 6, 7, and 8.
8
2
Applicant submitted his Public Trust Position Application (SF 85P), on November
1, 2009.  On March 24, 2011, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to1
Applicant detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding2
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); the Regulation (supra); and the
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on March 29, 2011.  He answered3
the SOR in writing on March 31, 2011, and requested that his case be decided by an
administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel4
submitted the Government’s written case on May 3, 2011. A complete copy of the File
of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an5
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation
within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on May 25, 2011, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on August 3, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a federal contractor, where he has worked
since late 2009 as a customer service representative. He is single, with no children. He
earned an associate’s degree in December 2006.  In his answer, Applicant admitted all6
nine of the allegations in the SOR.  Those admissions and his sworn responses to7
DOHA interrogatories  are incorporated in the following findings.8
Items 4, 9, 10, and 11.
9
Item 6. The only period of unemployment listed on Applicant’s SF 85P was from sometime in April 2009,
10
when he was fired from his truck driver job after an accident, until June 2009 when he started his next job.
Item 5. 
Item 7.
11
Item 8.
12
Item 6. 
13
3
Applicant admitted owing all nine of the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.i, totaling $23,467. These accounts all became delinquent between January
2008 and December 2009. Two of the debts, totaling $485, arose from unidentified
medical expenses.  In his interview with an investigator from the Office of Personnel9
Management (OPM) on April 13, 2010, he said that he was struggling financially and
was capable of meeting his current obligations but did not have much extra money for
past-due accounts. He further said that he accumulated these debts during periods of
unemployment, and was attempting to repay them.  10
Applicant offered no evidence of any payment toward these debts, or of any
other attempts to effectively resolve them. On August 25, 2010, he said that he was
working with a money-management company to resolve many of the debts.  Applicant11
was then requested to provide copies of his contract with the company, a listing of
creditors covered under the agreement, and how the company would resolve the debts.
On October 18, 2010, he responded: “No longer working with [money-management
company]. In our meeting we set up a budget. They then made the monthly payment to
participate in their program more than I could afford.”  There is no evidence that12
Applicant has sought or obtained any other financial counseling. 
During his OPM interview, Applicant claimed that his monthly gross income is
$2,000; with net take-home pay of $1,600. He said that his monthly living expenses
totaled $1,385; leaving $215 per month in surplus discretionary income. He provided no
documentation to substantiate these figures, and stated that he did not know where his
extra monthly income goes. His only asset is a car worth $1,000.  Applicant provided13
no other evidence concerning his budget, or his actions to curb spending in response to
any periods of unemployment or reduced income. Nor did he demonstrate either the
ability or willingness to attempt resolution of his admittedly delinquent debts.
Applicant provided no information concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
 
Item 12.
14
4
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”
(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.” (Regulation ¶
C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security)
Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004,  indicates trustworthiness adjudications will14
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. (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 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, “[t]he 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 applies for access to sensitive information seeks to enter 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
5
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
sensitive information. 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under this
order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern pertaining to financial considerations:
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 classified information. An individual who is financially over-
extended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes
including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources
of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
AG ¶ 19 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Department Counsel argued persuasively that the evidence raised two of
these potentially disqualifying conditions: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;”
and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” (Throughout this analysis, the
terms “security” and “trustworthiness” are used interchangeably.) 
Applicant admitted owing nine SOR-listed delinquent debts totaling almost
$23,500. The record shows an almost-four-year history during which Applicant has been
regularly unable or unwilling to satisfy any of these debts. Having evaluated the nature,
quantity, and amounts involved in Applicant’s debts, I find insufficient evidence to
establish irresponsible or frivolous spending. There were neither allegations nor proof of
compulsive, addictive, or problem gambling. Nor was there any evidence of drug abuse,
alcoholism, or deceptive financial practices. Accordingly, no other Guideline F
disqualifying condition was established. The evidence supporting application of AG ¶¶
19(a) and 19(c) shifts the burden of proof to Applicant to establish mitigation of the
resulting trustworthiness concerns.  
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from a
history of unpaid debt, and a present unwillingness or inability to meet financial
obligations:
6
(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;
(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;
(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;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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.
Applicant’s delinquencies arose and continued over the past four years and
remain unpaid at present. He did not demonstrate that any of the circumstances giving
rise to those debts is unlikely to recur, or that his reliability, trustworthiness, and
judgment are not implicated by the ongoing situation. Accordingly, he did not establish
mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a). 
I find minimal, if any, mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). Applicant’s single period of
unemployment was not lengthy, compared to the time he has been employed, and it
resulted from his being fired for cause. Two of his smaller debts were for medical
expenses, but they were not shown to have resulted from unexpected emergencies.
Applicant did not demonstrate that he took responsible measures to limit expenses, or
that his financial circumstances have a foreseeable probability of changing for the
better. 
Applicant gave no indication that he received any effective financial counseling,
or that he had either a plan or the means to address over $23,000 in delinquent debt on
his $19,200 net annual income. He did not demonstrate solvency going forward, or
otherwise indicate that his financial situation is under control. Given the record
evidence, repayment or other resolution of his substantial delinquent debt is unlikely.
Financial trustworthiness concerns are therefor not mitigated under AG ¶¶ 20(c) or (d).
Applicant admitted the validity of each SOR-listed delinquent debt, so AG ¶ 20(e) is
inapplicable. 
7
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) 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
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s conduct of concern
involves the substantial amount of delinquent debt that arose and remained unpaid over
the past four years. The concerns are exacerbated by the absence of evidence that the
circumstances leading to his inability or unwillingness to repay these debts have
changed, or will change, for the better. He has not sought financial counseling, except
for one meeting with a money-management company whose recommendation he
rejected. There is no evidence suggesting any reduction in the potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress that could tempt Applicant to abuse his public trust
position. 
On balance, Applicant presented insufficient evidence to mitigate the reliability
and trustworthiness concerns arising from his financial considerations, including his
failure to pay substantial delinquent debts over the past four years and his apparent
inability to do so going forward. Overall, the record evidence leaves significant doubt as
to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a public trust position.
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 through 1.i: Against Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
public trust position. Eligibility for access to ADP I/II/III sensitive information is denied.    
 
 
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge