1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ADP Case No. 11-06376 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant accrued about $34,645 in delinquent debt due, in part, to irresponsible 
spending. She had an agreement in place to repay a $12,625 credit card judgment and two 
other credit card debts totaling $7,125, which she cancelled in August 2011. As of late 
September 2011, she was making no payments on her delinquent debts. Public trust 
position denied. 
 
 Statement of the Case  
 
On October 26, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing the trustworthiness concerns under 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations, as to why it could not grant her eligibility for a public 
trust position. DOHA took action 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 
(January 1987) as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the 
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
 
 2 
  
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 1, 2011. She answered 
the SOR on November 16, 2011, but it was considered incomplete because it was not 
notarized, and she did not indicate whether she wanted a hearing or a decision on the 
written record. On February 27, 2012, Applicant requested a decision without a hearing. On 
March 30, 2012, the Government submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), consisting 
of ten exhibits (Items 1-10). On April 2, 2012, DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to 
Applicant and instructed her to respond within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the 
FORM on April 10, 2012. No response was received by the May 10, 2012, due date. On 
May 30, 2012, the case was assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with 
national security to grant or continue a public trust position for Applicant. 
 
Findings of Fact 
  
  The SOR alleged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that as of October 
26, 2011, Applicant owed a $12,625 judgment debt (SOR 1.a), $263 in medical debt in 
collection (SOR 1.b and 1.c), and delinquent consumer credit card and loan debt totaling 
$21,700 (SOR 1.d-1.l). Applicant admitted the debts without explanation. Her admissions to 
the delinquencies are incorporated as findings of fact. After considering the Government’s 
FORM, which includes her Answer (Item 4), I make the following additional findings of fact.  
  
Applicant is 27 years old, married, and has a three-year-old daughter.
1
 (Item 5.) She 
is employed by a medical services company that contracts with the DOD. Applicant started 
working there as a medical services coordinator under the employ of a staffing agency in 
September 2010, and in January 2011, she was hired by the defense contractor. (Item 6.) 
 
Applicant has an associate’s degree in human resources, which was awarded her in 
May 2005. Applicant was employed part time while in school, but she financed her 
education through a student loan of $6,125 taken out in September 2003. (Items 5-8.) 
During her first year in college, she worked in sales at a local greeting card store. From 
April 2004 to September 2007, Applicant worked as an assistant manager for another 
retailer at three different locations. (Items 5, 6.) During this time, Applicant opened several 
charge accounts (SOR 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k), and she took out an automobile loan of 
$11,747, to be repaid at $203 per month for six years. (Items 8, 9.) In October 2006, her 
student loan account was closed, and her debt was transferred to a new account. (SOR 
1.i). From September 2007 until October 2008, Applicant worked in sales for a jewelry 
store. (Item 5.) Although she made her car payments on time, she stopped paying on some 
of her credit card accounts (SOR 1.g, 1.h, 1.j). (Items 8, 9.) Applicant saw a financial 
counselor a few times, but her income was insufficient to pay all her credit obligations. 
(Item 6.) 
 
In September 2008, Applicant and her spouse married. In October 2008, she 
accepted an office manager’s position with another jeweler. In late May 2009, she and her 
spouse had a daughter. In August 2010, Applicant was fired from her employment. She 
                                                 
1
Applicant may also have a newborn. She informed DOHA by email on February 8, 2012, that she had just 
received an email message of January 18, 2012, because she had been on maternity leave. (Item 4.) 
 
 3 
claims that she had put in a three-week notice, but she was terminated three days later 
because of a company policy that resignations are effective immediately. (Items 5, 6.) 
 
In September 2010, Applicant began working for her current employer under a 
contract held by an employment services company. On September 7, 2010, Applicant 
completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) for an 
automated data processing (ADP) position designated to support a DOD contract. 
Applicant responded “No” to the financial record inquiries:  22.a, concerning, in part, 
whether a legal judgment had been entered against her for a debt in the last seven years, 
and question 22.b, about whether she was currently over 180 days delinquent on any loan 
or financial obligation. (Item 5.) 
 
On October 7, 2010, the credit bureaus reported that Applicant owed a $12,625 
credit card judgment filed in March 2010 (SOR 1.a), and several collection debts:  charge 
account balances of $3,386 (SOR 1.e), $933 (SOR 1.g), $682 (SOR 1.h), $5,987 (SOR 
1.j), and $582 (SOR 1.k); $165 telephone (SOR 1.f) and $59 cable television (SOR 1.l) 
debts; and a $202 medical debt (SOR 1.c). Also, Applicant was 180 days past due on a 
$7,283 student loan balance (SOR 1.i). (Item 9.) 
 
On April 14, 2011, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about her employment history and her financial 
accounts. Applicant volunteered that she should have responded affirmatively to 22.a and 
22.b on her e-QIP, although she denied knowing that credit card debt needed to be 
reported. She indicated that since about 2008, she had been working with a debt 
settlement firm to resolve the judgment and the credit card debts in SOR 1.g and 1.j, and 
that she had been paying $248 per month under an agreement. Applicant admitted that her 
income was insufficient to make payments on her student loan when it came out of 
deferment. Applicant also acknowledged that the charge account in SOR 1.h was past due. 
She did not recognize some of the debts on her credit record, including those 
delinquencies in SOR 1.c, 1.e, 1.k, and 1.l. Applicant denied that her cell phone account 
(SOR 1.f) with her previous servicer was ever delinquent because she paid her bill in full 
each month. Applicant estimated that she and her spouse had monthly household 
discretionary income of $36 after paying their living expenses, installment and car loans, 
and $278 toward credit cards, including the $248 to the debt settlement firm. She attributed 
her financial delinquencies to her youth and not fully understanding how credit worked. She 
admitted that she had bought items she could not afford in the past, and interest rates 
made her debt unmanageable. Applicant expressed her intent to satisfy the judgment and 
then make payments on her other debts. (Item 6.) 
 
A check of Applicant’s credit on August 18, 2011, revealed that her student loan 
account (SOR 1.i) had been referred for collection. The balance of the debt in SOR 1.g had 
increased to $1,138, and there was no reduction in the balance of the judgment debt 
reported, despite her assertion of $248 monthly payments to the debt settlement firm from 
sometime in 2008 until August 2011. Also, a secured credit line had been reportedly 
charged off in the amount of $484 (SOR 1.d), and a $60 medical debt had been placed for 
collection in December 2010 (SOR 1.b). (Item 8.) 
 
 4 
 
On September 1, 2011, the lender holding Applicant’s student loan notified her of its 
intent to garnish her wages for the $9,237.44 updated balance (SOR 1.i) unless she 
entered into a repayment agreement with its collection agent by October 7, 2011. In 
response to DOHA interrogatories about efforts, if any, to resolve her delinquencies, 
Applicant indicated that in August 2011, she cancelled her agreement with the debt 
settlement firm. She admitted that she had done nothing to resolve the debts in the SOR. 
She provided documentation showing that she needed to reach an agreement to repay her 
defaulted student loan or her wages would be garnished. Applicant also furnished proof 
that on August 11, 2011, she paid $1,106.83 to pay off a credit card balance on an account 
that had a $1,000 limit. Applicant averred that her financial situation was in a better state 
than it had been in the last five years. She hoped to be able to begin taking care of her 
outstanding delinquencies, but the debts would not be resolved overnight. (Item 7.) 
 
Applicant did not update the record about the status of her student loan debt. It is 
unclear whether Applicant’s wages are currently being garnished to repay her defaulted 
student loan, whether she is repaying the loan under an agreement with the lender or its 
assignee, or whether no payments are being made. As of late September 2011, Applicant 
was not making any payments on delinquent debt that reportedly totaled about $34,645.
2
 
(Items 4, 6-9.) She was paying her day-to-day expenses on time. (Item 6.) 
  
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 national security. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.) 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.  
  
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the 
administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the 
Adjudicative Guidelines (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 
overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
                                                 
2 
The $34,645 total balance includes the $57 increase in student loan debt from the reported $9,180 in August 
2011 (Item 8) to $9,237 as of October 2011. If Applicant consistently paid $248 per month from March 2010, 
when the judgment was issued, until August 2011, when she cancelled her agreement, her debt would have 
been reduced by about $4,216, excluding any interest charges and fees assessed on the debt. Applicant 
presented no corroboration for her claimed payments. Moreover, Applicant did not contest the $13,200.74 
reported judgment balance when she responded to DOHA interrogatories in late September 2011. (See Item 
7.) 
 
 5 
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 reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
  
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 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. See Executive Order 12968, 
Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive 
information).  
  
Analysis 
  
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The trustworthiness concerns about Financial Considerations are 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 classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is 
at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
 
 The evidence establishes that Applicant accrued about $34,588 in delinquent debt 
to the creditors alleged in the SOR. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” 
AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” and AG ¶ 19(e), “consistent 
spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, 
significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis,” 
are established. Applicant did not fully understand how credit works. At the same time, she 
admitted that she overextended herself financially. She bought items that she could not 
afford on her income, and her debt accumulated to unmanageable levels. 
 
 
 6 
  Concerning potentially mitigating conditions, 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,” cannot reasonably apply, given the absence of any demonstrated, sustained 
progress toward resolving her past-due debt balances. Moreover, as recently as December 
2010, a small medical debt of $60 was placed for collection. AG ¶ 20(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,” is not 
implicated. Applicant admitted that her debts were not caused by circumstances beyond 
her control. 
 
 Applicant told an OPM investigator in April 2011 that she had arranged to pay $248 
per month to a debt settlement firm to resolve the judgment as well as the debts in SOR 
1.g and 1.j. She presented no evidence of any payments, which she claimed to have made 
since 2008 to the debt settlement company. A voluntary effort to resolve debt through a 
debt management agreement could implicate AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant apparently also 
attended a few financial counseling sessions in 2008. See AG ¶ 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.” However, it is difficult to mitigate the 
financial security concerns under either AG ¶ 20(c) or AG ¶ 20(d) because Applicant 
cancelled her debt management agreement in August 2011, and she has made no 
payments toward any of her debts since then. On September 1, 2011, she was informed 
that her wages would be garnished to collect her defaulted student loan debt unless she 
established a written repayment agreement with the lender’s collection agent by October 7, 
2011. It is unclear whether she entered into a repayment agreement. Furthermore, despite 
her financial situation being better than it has been in the last five years, she has not paid 
even her minor debts of $61 (SOR 1.b) and $59 (SOR 1.l).  
 
 Concerning mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(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 disputed the $165 wireless services debt (SOR 1.f) 
when she was interviewed in April 2011. Applicant believed that she had paid the charges 
on her account in full each month. Yet, when she answered the SOR, she did not deny the 
debt. The debt was still on her credit record as of August 2011, and she did not present 
any financial records to undermine its validity. Apparently, she is no longer contesting the 
debt. AG ¶ 20(e) is not established. 
 
  
 
 7 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
3
 
 
Applicant’s delinquent debt is largely attributable to youth and financial naiveté. At 
the same time, she has a responsibility to repay her creditors for the goods and services 
she enjoyed as a result of credit extended to her. Of her more than $30,000 in delinquent 
debt, only $263 was for medical services. Applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to 
establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. She need only establish a plan to 
resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no 
requirement that she make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a 
requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 
at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). Applicant had a plan in place that she cancelled for 
reasons not apparent in the record available for review. Applicant expressed hope in late 
September 2011 that she could begin repaying her debt. She offered no explanation for 
her failure to make any payments on the debts in the SOR in the last seven months. 
Applicant apparently went on maternity leave, and the costs of having another child could 
have strained the household budget. That being said, she presumably had $248 per month 
extra after she cancelled her debt management plan. Doubts exist about whether she can 
be counted on to make the sound decisions that must be demanded of those persons in a 
public trust position. I am unable to conclude on the record before me that it is clearly 
consistent with national security to grant Applicant access to sensitive information at this 
time. 
 
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 
 
Subparagraph 1.a-1.l: Against Applicant 
                                                 
3 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 8 
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. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge