1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 10-05648
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn E. Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant:
                                                                            
______________
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 his Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85P) on
November 4, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness concerns under
Guideline F on March 24, 2011. 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 March 31, 2011.  He answered
the SOR in writing on April 18, 2011, and he requested a hearing before an
administrative judge. DOHA received the request on April 21, 2011. Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 2, 2011, and DOHA assigned the case to
me on June 20, 2011. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on July 11, 2011, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on July 28, 2011. The Government offered exhibits
GE 1; Tr. 38-39.1
GE 1; AE A; Tr. 19, 39.2
2
GE 1 through GE 9, which were received and admitted without objection. Applicant
testified and submitted exhibits AE A and AE B, which were received and admitted
without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 11, 2011.
I held the record open until August 29, 2011, for the submission of additional matters.
Applicant timely submitted AE C through AE O, which were received and admitted
without objection. The record closed on August 29, 2011.
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on July 15, 2011. (Tr. at 8) I advised
Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice before the
hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to 15 days notice. (Id.) 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in the SOR,
contingent upon proof the debts were his, as he disputed owing five debts to one
creditor. He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a
public trust position.
Applicant, who is 39 years old, works as a data analyst for a Department of
Defense contractor. Applicant began his current position in November 2009 and has not
violated his employer’s confidentiality procedures. Prior to his current employment,
Applicant worked as an operations analyst for three years.1
Applicant graduated from high school and immediately enlisted in the United
States Army in 1990. The Army honorably discharged him in December 1992. The
Army awarded him an Army Achievement Medal, a National Defense Service Medal,
Southwest Service Medal with two bronze stars, and several ribbons. After his military
service, Applicant attended a technology school, but did not graduate.2
In 1998, Applicant started working for a major bank as a contractor. The bank
later hired him as a permanent employee. In 1999, on his way to work, Applicant
sustained several knife wounds in a road rage incident. One wound penetrated his neck
muscles, requiring treatment at the hospital and an overnight hospital stay. He did not
seek further treatment until 2003. By this time, he had experienced severe and ongoing
pain in his neck, which he self-treated with over-the-counter pain and sleep medicines.
Because these medicines did not relieve his paid or solve his sleep problems, he
increased his use until he sought medical help. His doctor placed him on disability,
which lasted at least 14 months. When his doctor did not release him for work by
GE 1; GE 5; Tr. 20-22, 44-49.3
GE 1; GE 4; Tr. 21, 51.4
GE 1; Tr. 24, 34.5
The November 11, 2009 credit report shows a bank credit card with a balance of $20,555 and the notation6
“pays as agrees”. See GE 3. The August 10, 2010 credit report shows a balance of $18,909 and the July 18,
2011 credit report shows a balance of $15,227. See GE 4, AE B. I find the $1,000 monthly payment is for this
account.
GE 5; AE D; AE E; AE F; Tr. 69-74.7
AE G- AE J.8
3
January 2005, the bank terminated his employment. He remained unemployed until
September 2006, and he received six months of unemployment.3
Applicant’s financial problems began when his was disabled from working. The
disability insurance carrier did not always send his disability check, causing him to lose
his disability income for several weeks at a time. He used his savings and credit cards
to pay his bills. When his unemployment ended, he again used his credit cards to pay
his bills and living expenses.4
Applicant married in August 2005. He has a fifteen-year-old daughter, who
began living with him in the summer of 2010. His wife works.5
Applicant’s monthly salary increased from $3,848 in gross income to $4,082 in
gross income in July 2011. His monthly net income increased from $2,837 to $3,009.
His wife receives $4,847 in net monthly income, for a total household net income of
$7,856. His monthly expenses include $1,295 for rent, utilities for $360, insurance for
$150, cable for $170, telephones for $335, car payments for $1,011, $250 for school
loans, $600 for groceries, $530 for family therapy, $585 for medical expenses, $260 for
school and work expenses, $1,000 payment on a credit card debt, and $59 a month to
a credit repair company.  His monthly expenses total $6,610, leaving approximately6
$1,240 a month for debt payment. His monthly income pays his monthly living
expenses.7
Applicant submitted his income tax returns for the years 2007 through 2010. His
tax returns reflect an income of $41,000 in 2007, of $59,000 in 2008, of $89,600 in
2009, and of $103,000 in 2010.8
The SOR identified eight purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected by
credit reports from 2009, 2010 and 2011, totaling approximately $85,668. Some
accounts have been transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection
agents. Other accounts are referenced repeatedly in both credit reports, in many
instances duplicating other accounts listed, either under the same creditor or collection
agency name or under a different creditor or collection agency name. Some accounts
are identified by complete account numbers, while others are identified by partial
GE 6; GE 9; AE A; AE K-AE O.9
SOR; GE 1; GE 4; GE 6; GE 8; AE B; AE K-AE O.10
4
account numbers, in some instances eliminating the last four digits and in others
eliminating other digits. Applicant defaulted on six of his SOR debts in 2007, one in
2008 and one in 2009.
When he met with the security investigator, Applicant denied obtaining five credit
accounts with one bank. He admitted he had two accounts with this bank. The SOR
lists four debts with this bank, and Applicant is paying monthly, a large debt with the
bank. Applicant also disagreed with the balances on many accounts when he met with
the security investigator. 
Applicant has not received credit counseling. However, in February 2011,
Applicant hired a law firm to review his credit report and verify the debts he owes. This
firm has written to his creditors asking for information he is entitled to receive under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. The firm’s efforts led to the removal of the judgment list in
SOR ¶ 1.a and two collection accounts without explanation. I am unable to determine if
the removed collection accounts are the same as accounts listed in the SOR, although
it is possible. The firm has challenged eight other debts on his credit report with the
credit reporting agencies and has written directly to the creditors for information. The
firm is awaiting responses to its letters. Applicant also wrote letters to three creditors
asking for information on his debts in July 2010, but did not receive a response.9
The status of the SOR debts in ¶¶ 1.b through 1.h is unpaid, but disputed.
Applicant acknowledged to the security investigator that he owed the debts listed in
SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, and 1.f, but disputed the balance. He also listed these three accounts
on his SF 85P and one account from the bank. I find the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, and
1.f are Applicant’s.  The validity of the remaining debts is unknown, as the creditor has
not responded to the letters from the firm, and the credit reports dated August 11, 2010
and February 7, 2011 indicate that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.h are disputed.
The July 18, 2011 credit report indicates more debts are disputed. The information on
the credit reports does not provide a clear picture of the status of Applicant’s debts.10
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
5
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 to obtain 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).  
6
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 trustworthiness
concerns. I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially
applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems when he did not receive his
disability checks and after he lost his job in January 2005. He used his credit cards to
pay his living expenses and eventually stopped his payments. Most of the debts have
not been resolved. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(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 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
The judgment could have been removed because it was not his or improperly obtained.11
7
(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 credit card debts occurred because he was unemployed for more
than 18 months and because he did not always receive his disability income. He
stopped paying most of his debts in 2007 about one year after he returned to work. His
tax return for 2007 supports his inability to pay these debts at that time. He last
defaulted on a debt in February 2009. He is paying one large debt not listed in the
SOR, but none of the debts in the SOR. He retained the services of a law firm to help
him verify the debts and the balances of these debts, as he denied some debts and
disputed the balance owed on others. The law firm succeeded in removing three debts
from his credit reports, but only one debt is clearly identified as an SOR debt. The
reason for removal of the judgment is unclear, as judgments in his state of residence
are collectible for five years after the date of judgment and can be renewed.  Based on11
the evidence in this record, AG ¶¶ 20(b) and (20)(c) are partially applicable in this case.
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 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.” 
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 public trust position 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.
8
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s financial problems
began during his disability and increased after the bank terminated his employment. He
did not return to work for more than 18 months after his termination. He relied on his
credit cards to pay his expenses, creating more financial problems for himself. As his
income improved, he began to remain current on most of his living expenses, except
one car payment. The reasons for his car loan default in 2009 are unexplained and
raise questions about his judgment. Applicant and his wife are paying one large credit
card bill and their monthly living expenses. However, he has not paid any of the debts
listed in the SOR. He hired a law firm to help verify his debts, when he did not get a
response from the creditors when he wrote to them. At this time, the status of his
unpaid debts is unknown.
Applicant has sufficient monthly income to meet his current monthly expenses
and does so. He has taken steps towards the resolution of his SOR debts, but, at this
time, these debts remain unpaid. He is moving in the right direction with his efforts to
determine the validity of all the bank debts, since he denies owing the bank on five
accounts. The record contains confusing information on the debts listed in the SOR,
making it difficult to determine the status of his debts. The confusing evidence is
insufficient to establish that Applicant has mitigated the Government’s concerns about
his trustworthiness. I recognize that Applicant served honorably in the Army, and that
he has not violated his employer’s confidentiality rules. However, his significant unpaid
debts remain a concern.
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 has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising under the
financial considerations guideline. 
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.h: Against Applicant
9
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