1
                                                             
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
           DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 11-05321
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred more than $62,000 in delinquent debts over the past six 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, testimony, and exhibits,
eligibility for access to ADP I/II/III sensitive information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
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).
GE 1.
1
Applicant’s initial answer was ambiguous on the subject. Department Counsel clarified the options for him
2
and he confirmed that he desired to have a hearing in an email dated June 12, 2012. See HE II.
GE 1.
3
AR.
4
GE 3.
5
2
Applicant submitted his Public Trust Position Application (SF 85P), on September
10, 2010.  On March 8, 2012, 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, Safeguarding
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 30, 2012. He answered
the SOR in writing (AR) on May 9, 2012, and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 25, 2012.2
The case was assigned to me on July 2, 2012. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
July 20, 2012, and I convened the hearing, as scheduled, on August 15, 2012. The
Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection,
and Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, a Government exhibit list. Applicant offered Exhibits (AE) A
and B, which were also admitted without objection, and testified on his own behalf. I
granted Applicant’s request to leave the record open for submission of additional
evidence until September 5, 2012. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
August 21, 2012. Applicant timely submitted AE C and D, which were admitted without
objection (See HE III), and the record closed as scheduled.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 33-year-old employee of a federal contractor, where he has worked
since late September 2010 as a customer service representative. He is married, with
three young children. He is a high school graduate.  In his answer, Applicant admitted3
the truth of 19 of the 22 allegations in the SOR.  Those admissions, and his sworn4
responses to DOHA interrogatories  are incorporated in the following findings.5
Applicant admitted owing the nineteen delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.o, 1.q, 1.r, 1.t, and 1.v, totaling $59,427. These accounts became delinquent
during and since 2006, when Applicant accepted a severance offer from his employer of
six years to avoid relocation and began a period of voluntary unemployment. He held a
well paying job again from January 2008 to March 2010, when he quit working in order
AR; GE 3; Tr. 84-94, 99-100. 
6
AR; GE 3; GE 5; Tr. 66-67.
7
AR; GE 3; Tr. 77-82.
8
AR; AE C; Tr. 70-77.
9
GE 3; Tr. 93-100. 
10
3
to help his wife with an unsuccessful internet “pyramid-type” life insurance home
business. This business generated no income for them, and Applicant started working in
his current position during September 2010. In his interview with an investigator from
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on March 3, 2011, he said that he was
struggling financially and was capable of meeting his current obligations, but was still
unable to pay his past-due accounts. He further said that he had undergone no financial
counseling or debt consolidation.  6
Applicant offered no evidence of any payment toward these debts, or of any
other attempts to effectively resolve them. He denied owing the $1,782 delinquent debt
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.p because he did not recognize or remember it. That debt appears
on his credit report and he has made no effort to dispute it or inquire further with the
creditor.  He claimed that some or all of the delinquent judgment debts alleged in SOR7
¶¶ 1.t, 1.u, and 1.v had been paid through a wage garnishment while he was working
between 2008 and 2010, but was unsure of the details and provided no evidence to
corroborate the payments.  Applicant provided documentation from the Internal8
Revenue Service (IRS) showing that during June 2011 it retained $1,987 from his 2010
income tax refund to satisfy his delinquent 2009 income tax debt that is alleged in SOR
¶ 1.s. He used the remainder of that refund to repay loans and other obligations to his
family members, and was therefore unable to use it for a vacation he had hoped to take.
He did not intend to use any of the refund to repay other delinquent debts.9
During his OPM interview, Applicant claimed that his monthly gross income is
$2,200; with net take-home pay of $1,800, plus $700 per month from the state for food
assistance. He said that his monthly living expenses totaled $2,380; leaving $120 per
month in surplus discretionary income. He provided no documentation to substantiate
these figures, but testified during his hearing that his net monthly income was $900 to
$1,000, that his food assistance was reduced to $195 per month since he had resumed
working, and that they lived paycheck to paycheck with no planned budget. His wife
remains unemployed. His only assets are a car worth $2,000 and about $500 in a
401(k) account. Applicant provided 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.10
Applicant thinks that he will lose his current job in March 2013 because his
employer lost the contract to a competitor for services after that date. He provided four
AE A; AE B; AE D; Tr. 33-34, 38-48, 100-102.
11
4
months of performance “Scorecards” indicating that he met or exceeded expectations in
all evaluation areas. His wife testified that he is a hard working and humble family man
who loves his job and works to help young people. He submitted no other character
references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or
reliability.11
 
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 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. (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.”
5
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
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 concerns 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 nineteen SOR-listed delinquent debts, and provided no
evidence to substantiate his denial of two others. These debts total more than $61,500.
The record shows an almost-six-year history during which Applicant has been regularly
unable or unwilling to voluntarily 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
6
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:
(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 six years, and
remain unpaid or unresolved 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 periods of
unemployment were not lengthy, compared to the time he has been employed, and they
both resulted from his voluntary departures from fairly well paying jobs. Some 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 after choosing to leave his prior jobs, or that his financial
circumstances have a foreseeable probability of improving in the future. 
7
Applicant gave no indication that he sought or received any effective financial
counseling, or that he had either a plan or the means to address over $61,500 in
delinquent debt on his $1,200 net monthly income while feeding and housing his family.
He did not demonstrate solvency going forward, or otherwise indicate that his financial
situation is under control. His only demonstrated resolution of an SOR-listed debt
occurred involuntarily when the IRS retained part of his 2010 income tax refund to
satisfy his prior year tax deficiency. Given the record evidence, repayment or other
resolution of his remaining substantial delinquent debt is unlikely. Financial
trustworthiness concerns are therefor not mitigated under AG ¶¶ 20(c) or (d). Applicant
failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis to dispute the validity of any SOR-listed
delinquent debt, so AG ¶ 20(e) is inapplicable. 
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 during the past six years
and remains unpaid. 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. 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 six 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.
8
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.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.t through 1.v: Against Applicant
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