1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ADP Case No. 10-09053
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On June 20, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) noting security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), DOD
Regulation 5200.2-R; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 
In a July 22, 2011, response, Applicant admitted seven of the nine allegations
raised under Guideline F. On September 22, 2011, Department Counsel submitted a
File of Relevant Material (FORM), which included 10 attached items. On November 7,
2011, Department Counsel noted no objection to Applicant’s timely response to the
FORM. The case was assigned to me on November 28, 2011. Based on a review of the
case file, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the security concerns
raised under Guideline F. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
 Applicant’s husband was “determined to be completely disabled by [their state] for most of his early adult      1
life but continued to try to find ways he could work and get off SSI.” FORM, Item 4 (Response to the SOR,
undated, at 1). She noted that he suffers from both the congenital brittle bone disease (Osteogenesis
Imperfecta) and acute hearing loss “which often made it difficult to find work.” Id.
 FORM, Item 6 (Applicant’s Response to Interrogatories [Financial], signed Apr. 8, 2011) at 9.      2
 Id. at 10. On the budget spreadsheet provided, Applicant noted under monthly debts a $1,300 payment      3
to their mortgagor, entered a duplicate entry of their $300 monthly car loan payment, and a zero for monthly
payments on Applicant’s husband’s credit cards, which are noted as paid off. This amounts to $1,600.
However, in the column for total monthly payments on those debts, she entered $2,600. Assuming the
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old file administrator who has worked for the same health
care provider since 2003. She completed a Public Trust Questionnaire on February 26,
2010. Applicant is on a roster as a substitute group fitness instructor at a local health
facility, but she has not been called to teach in any capacity since October 2010. She
finished a two-year post-secondary program in 1996.  Applicant is married and has a
teenage child.
In about 1999, Applicant’s husband started a consulting business after his former
employer filed for bankruptcy. As a result of that entity’s bankruptcy, her husband, who
had previously allowed the company to use his personal credit cards, was left
responsible for an unspecified amount of the entity’s debt. At some unidentified time
after starting his consulting business, her husband was twice hospitalized for bone
fractures suffered from congenital bone disease.  At the time, he did not have health1
insurance coverage, and he incurred an unspecified amount of medical debt. After his
recuperation, he found it difficult to work. Consequently, Applicant began working for
her current employer in 2003. Her salary was not sufficient to both cover their expenses
and make progress on her debt. At some unidentified time, Applicant’s husband’s
health improved, he presumably returned to work, and they are now in “a better position
to deal with [their] debt.”  2
Applicant acknowledges that debts have been accrued. Some of those debts
were related to loans from family members. Until recently, she and her husband were
unable to hire a bookkeeper or accountant to help them with their income and
expenses, and did not file and/or pay federal taxes for tax years 2003 and 2004. They
now use an accountant and have also solicited the help of a tax consultant to help them
with their tax issues. There is no evidence showing that Applicant has received financial
counseling.
Currently, Applicant earns a net monthly salary of about $2,558, while her
husband’s net monthly income is about $3,000. Consequently, their total net income is
about $5,558. Subtracted from that sum are monthly expenses amounting to about
$2,490. This includes a $300 monthly car loan payment to a family member that is also
noted as one of three monthly debts, amounting to $1,600. Minus the $300 car
payment noted as a monthly expense, their total monthly debts amount to $1,300.3
mortgage payment is $1,300 and not $2,600, the monthly net remainder would be $1,768.
 In the FORM, the Government stated that the monthly net remainder was approximately $1,468. It appears      4
this calculation did not account for the $300 monthly debt payment having been entered twice, under two
different categories (monthly expenses and monthly debts).
 Response to the FORM, attachment (Statement, dated Apr. 7, 2011).      5
 FORM, Item 4 (Attachments).      6
 Response to the FORM.      7
 Id.      8
3
Therefore, they have a monthly net remainder of about $1,768.  Their budget does not4
reflect any payments toward the debts at issue in the SOR.
At issue in the SOR are nine allegations, representing approximately $68,500 in
debts. Of those debts, Applicant denies the related allegations at SOR ¶ 1.a ($248) and
¶ 1.d ($20,575). Applicant provided evidence that she paid ¶ 1.a.   As for ¶ 1.d,5
Applicant provided evidence that she disputed the amount purported as owed and
requested validation of the debt in February 2008 and August 2008.  She stated that6
she never received any responses to those 2008 requests.  She does not recognize7
this debt and is unsure of its origin. There is no evidence that she again requested
validation from the entity or ever formally disputed the alleged debt with one of the three
leading credit reporting bureaus. 
With regard to the remaining non-tax-related debts, Applicant stresses that her
first priority is to address her tax situation, which is encompassed by SOR allegations
¶¶ 1.g-1.i.  She stated that she is currently working with a tax consultant on resolving
her tax situation, but provided no evidence of any efforts by her consultant and no
correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Applicant does not want to
seek bankruptcy protection because she hopes to honor her debts. She stressed that
the debt noted at ¶ 1.a is the only recent debt noted in the SOR, thus reaffirming that
the remainder of the debts at issue relate to her husband’s period of financial and
medical distress and her early-2000s efforts to independently support her family.   8
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. The AG lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law.
Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative judge’s
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under
AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      9
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      10
 See also EO 12968, § 3.1(b)  and EO 10865 § 7.      11
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      12
 Id.      13
4
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.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. It is an applicant’s responsibility to
present  “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts
admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is9
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  10
A person seeking access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 about
potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that determinations11
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether12
an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in
favor of protecting such information.  A denial does not necessarily reflect badly on an13
applicant’s character. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict
guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have set forth for maintaining a
public trust position.
 AG ¶ 18.      14
5
Analysis
Guideline F – Financial Considerations 
In this case, Guideline F is the appropriate guideline for consideration. Under
that guideline, “failure or an 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.”  Here, Applicant14
admitted seven of nine enumerated allegations. While she paid one nominal debt (¶ 1.a
– $248) and disputed one large debt (¶ 1.d – $20,575), there remains about $48,000 of
debt still unaddressed. This includes federal tax obligations. In light of these facts,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply.
With such conditions raised, it is the Applicant’s burden to mitigate related security
concerns. 
Unfortunately, the root of most of Applicant’s current financial distress was the
result of her husband’s congenital health issues. Applicant noted that his health issues
have adversely impacted his ability to work throughout his adult life. Although Applicant
failed to note when her husband returned to working full-time after his hospitalizations
in the early 2000s, given the congenital nature of his health issues, the prospect of
future problems causing similar issues cannot be discounted. Moreover, although
Applicant is working full-time, complementing her husband’s income, her budget and
their recent financial distress demonstrate that she is not presently capable of
generating sufficient income to both support their household and address their
delinquent debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 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. 
Although Applicant failed to provide more specific information, it appears her
husband incurred business-related debt of an unknown amount when his employer filed
for bankruptcy around 1999. At some unspecified time in the next couple of years, he
underwent two surgeries while lacking health insurance coverage. In order to generate
income to support her family, Applicant obtained her present position. To the extent her
husband’s professional and medical issues were beyond their control and impacted
their family finances, and in light of Applicant’s initiative in finding work, Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the
behavior 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) applies with regard to the
creation of the delinquent debt at issue.
6
Applicant paid one minor debt ($248). However, although she twice disputed one
large debt ($20,575) in 2008, there is no evidence that she has more recently sought to
validate the alleged obligation or formally dispute it through one of the three leading
credit reporting bureaus. Moreover, while she noted they now use an accountant and a
tax consultant, there is no evidence that she has received financial counseling, nor is
there evidence demonstrating any additional efforts with regard to either her other
delinquent debts or her tax issues. Therefore, AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is
receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is
being resolved or is under control) does not apply. Furthermore, there is insufficient
evidence available to give rise to AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts), despite a significant monthly net
remainder. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s suitability for a public trust position by considering the totality of an
applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider
the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole-person concept. As noted above, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the
applicant seeking access to sensitive information. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
In choosing a decision without a hearing, however, many facts are raised without
elaboration, hampering a full assessment of Applicant’s situation. It is clear, however,
that Applicant is a mature, educated woman who was willing to accept a new job to help
support her family when her husband’s health prohibited him from full and gainful
employment. Her income, however, was insufficient to forestall the acquisition of
delinquent debt. 
Moreover, without professional help and guidance, tax issues were raised. While
the couple now generates a sustainable income and has a significant monthly net
remainder, there is no documentary evidence of current efforts to address the debt and
tax issues presented in the SOR. For example, while it is appreciated that Applicant
wants to avoid bankruptcy and make her tax liabilities a priority, she failed to provide
any documentary evidence showing what, if any, effort or progress has been made
through her tax professional. She also failed to demonstrate any post-2008 efforts to
dispute or seek validation of one very large debt. Such documentation is essential in
these proceedings. The AG does not demand that an applicant pay off or otherwise
satisfy all the debts raised in SOR, only a showing that an applicant has devised a
workable strategy for addressing her debts and has implemented that strategy. Here,
Applicant failed to make such a showing. Given the facts of record, therefore, I
conclude that Applicant failed to meet her burden and that trustworthiness concerns
remain unmitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
7
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.i  Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to sensitive
information. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge