1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ADP Case No. 11-13546
          )
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq. Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concern generated by his financial
delinquencies. Eligibility to occupy a sensitive position is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On April 23, 2013, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
trustworthiness concerns under Guidelines 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); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006.
On May 18, 2013, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations
except subparagraphs 1.o, 1.q, and 1.t, and requesting a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on July 22, 2013. A notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case
Applicant got another job that same month. (GE 1 at 13)1
2
for August 28, 2013.  At the hearing, I admitted ten Government exhibits (GE 1-10),
seven Applicant exhibits (AE A - G), and heard Applicant’s testimony.  At the close of
the hearing, I left the record open at Applicant’s request for him to submit additional
exhibits. Within the time allotted, Applicant submitted two additional exhibits that I
admitted into the record as AEs H and I. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on
September 5, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 33-year-old married man with three children, ages 12, 9, and 6,
and one stepchild, age 16. He has been married for 11 years. Applicant graduated from
high school in 1999. (Tr. 22) Since 2011, he has worked for a health insurance
company that processes claims for armed services members.
Both Applicant and his wife have severe medical problems. Applicant has a heart
defect and his wife has a neurological disorder. (Tr. 42-43) Since 2008, Applicant has
been periodically experiencing severe chest pain and shortness of breath as a result of
his illness. (Tr. 43) Applicant’s wife experiences frequent bouts of pain, extreme
dizziness, muscle spasms, and excessive fatigue. (AE I; Tr. 78) Over the years, she has
undergone three brain surgeries. (Tr. 78) She continues to struggle with illness and has
to take five to six medications daily, and have her liver function checked every six
months. (Tr. 84-85) Together, Applicant and his wife have experienced symptoms
related to their respective maladies that were severe enough to require emergency
room treatment 30 times in the past five years. (Tr. 45) Currently, Applicant’s physicians
are considering whether he needs open-heart surgery. (Tr. 89)
Applicant and his wife have experienced employment difficulties as a result of
their illnesses. In October 2010, Applicant lost his job, in part, because he was taking
too much leave to care for his family while his wife was ill. (GE 2 at 9)  In December1
2010, after Applicant’s wife’s second surgery, her employer terminated her. She
remained unemployed until gaining her current job in February 2013. (Tr. 52-53)
Although she is working, she is still struggling with her illness, and frequently misses
time from work. Currently, she has a claim pending for Social Security disability
compensation. (Tr. 80) 
Until approximately five years ago, Applicant and his wife had no health
insurance. (Tr. 43) Consequently, much of their health expenses were out-of-pocket,
and began to strain their finances. By January 2013, Applicant and his wife had incurred
approximately $40,000 in delinquent debt, including $11,000 from two voluntarily
repossessed cars (subparagraphs 1.r, 1.s), $18,000 in deficiencies from two involuntary
repossessed cars (subparagraphs 1.v, 1.z), 11 medical bills totalling $4,300
(subparagraphs 1.b-1.h; 1.j-1.m), $3,100 in miscellaneous debts (subparagraphs 1.n,
3
1.o, 1.w, 1.x), four  judgments (subparagraphs 1.a, 1.u, 1.aa, 1.bb), and five delinquent
utilities (subparagraphs 1.i, 1.p, 1.q, 1.t, 1.y).
Applicant contends that he satisfied the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.t, but
provided no corroborating evidence. SOR subparagraph 1.u is for a judgment that was
entered against Applicant’s wife for a debt she incurred. (Tr. 85) Applicant incurred the
debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.aa before he was married. (Tr. 24, 41)  
SOR subparagraphs 1.r and 1.s were loans that Applicant took out in 2006 to
purchase two used cars from the same lender. (GE 10 at 3) Applicant later discovered
that car repairs were being charged to the loan. Consequently, he returned the cars to
the seller. (GE 2 at 10) In the two years following the voluntary repossessions, Applicant
purchased two more cars that ultimately were repossessed, as set forth in
subparagraphs 1.v and 1.z. Although Applicant never satisfied these delinquencies,
they are no longer collectible because the statute of limitations for debt collection in the
state where he purchased the cars has expired. (Tr. 48)
AE H, a credit report dated September 5, 2013, that Applicant submitted after the
hearing, verifies that he is responsible for subparagraphs 1.o and 1.q, two of the SOR
delinquencies that he denied. (AE H at 1, 2)
Applicant’s financial situation has gradually improved since he relocated five
years ago to the state where he currently lives. (Tr. 100) Recently, he received a
promotion that was accompanied by a five percent raise.  (Tr. 60-61) He owns two cars
that “are paid for” in full. (Tr. 69) He purchased them by saving money rather than by
financing them. (Tr. 69) 
Applicant maintains a budget. He has $600 of monthly discretionary income. (Tr.
57) Applicant contends that this amount is insufficient to begin satisfying his
delinquencies given his wife’s history of health-related struggles that have limited her
ability to work full time, and the number of children that they have. (Tr. 62-64)
Approximately three months ago, Applicant met with an attorney to consider filing for
bankruptcy. He has not retained an attorney yet. (Tr. 64)
Applicant is highly respected in his community. According to his pastor, he is
active in the church, overseeing Christmas and Easter basket distributions each year,
working with the church’s food drives, and helping out with blood drives. (AE A)   
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The
4
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
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s delinquent debts trigger the application of  AG ¶ 19(a), “inability
or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.” The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially
applicable:
(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 and his wife, people of modest means, have been struggling to raise
four children while coping with severe health problems requiring costly treatment.
SOR subparagraphs 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 1.j, 1.p, and 1.m.2
5
Applicant readily acknowledges that irresponsibility and immaturity contributed to some
of his financial problems, particularly with respect to the delinquencies that pre-dated his
marriage. Nevertheless, the scope of Applicant and his wife’s health problems, the
corresponding health care expenses, and the periodic disruption to steady employment
caused by the health problems over the years clearly triggers the application of the first
prong of AG ¶ 20(b).
Applicant has yet to take any steps to pay or otherwise resolve his debts. He
contends that he paid the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.t, but provided no
corroborating evidence. He submitted a post-hearing credit report (AE H) indicating that
he requested an investigation of two of his SOR debts that he did not recognize;
however, the credit report confirmed that they were, in fact, his debts. I conclude that
none of the remaining mitigating conditions apply. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They 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.
Applicant is highly respected in his community. He provided vivid and compelling
testimony of the challenge of making ends meet as a man of limited income and
education with four children, a sickly wife,  and  major health problems. Conversely,
Applicant testified that he has approximately $600 of monthly discretionary income.
Given that  eight of the SOR debts are each less than $300,   I conclude that Applicant’s2
surrounding adverse circumstances, though significant, are insufficient to outweigh the
derogatory negative inference generated by his lack of any debt payments or any
concrete plans to pay or resolve them in the future.
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
6
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.bb: 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 for Applicant to be eligible to occupy a public
trust position.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge