1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 14-00593
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se    
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that
Applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF
85P) on August 27, 2013. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial
considerations on April 2, 2014. 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 April 17, 2014. She answered the
SOR, in writing, on April 24, 2014, and she requested a hearing before an
GE 2; Tr. 15, 34, 40.1
Applicant obtained legal custody of her stepson about five years ago. Tr. 34.2
GE 1; Tr. 15-17, 34-39. 3
2
administrative judge with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on May 14, 2014, and I received the
case assignment on May 20, 2014. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 30, 2014,
and I convened the hearing as scheduled on June 10, 2014. The Government
requested that a letter of rights and obligations, dated May 14, 2014 and mailed to
Applicant, be received as hearing exhibit (HE) 1. Applicant did not object, and HE 1 was
received in the record. In its case in chief, the Government offered four exhibits (GE) 1
through 4, which were received, marked, and admitted without objection. Applicant
testified. Applicant did not submit any exhibits. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing (Tr.) on June 27, 2014. I held the record open until June 30, 2014, for the
submission of additional matters. She did not submit any additional documents. The
record closed on June 30, 2014.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
At the hearing, Applicant indicated that she received the hearing notice a few
days before the hearing. (Tr. at 8) I advised Applicant of her right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the
Directive to 15 days notice before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived her right to
15 days notice. (Tr. at 8) 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR, with explanations. She also provided additional information to support her request
for eligibility for a public trust position.  
Applicant, who is 32 years old, works as a customer service representative for a
DOD contractor. She began her current employment in September 2013. In May 2014,
Applicant enrolled in a nursing program at a local college. She began her course work
on May 8, 2014. She also attended a university between August 2009 and April 2010.1
Applicant is single and the mother of three children, a stepson age 17,  a2
daughter age 10 and a son age 7. Applicant lived with the father of her two children and
stepson for 10 years. She was the primary source of income for the family as her
children’s father did not work. He does not provide child support, and he contacts her or
the children infrequently. She believes he lives in another state, but she does not
definitive knowledge about his current residence.3
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 41-53.4
Tr. 41-49.5
Tr. 74-75.6
3
On her SF 85P, Applicant provided her employment history from September
2003 until August 2013. During this time, she held 16 jobs, lasting between two months
and two years. At times, she worked two jobs. She quit a cashier’s job at a convenience
store following a holdup. She quit or resigned many of these jobs. She was also
involuntarily discharged from a number of jobs. One employer denied her maternity
leave, then discharged her after the birth of her daughter. She lost one job due to a
reduction-in-force, and she was discharged from three jobs for attendance issues,
including missing work while caring for her seriously ill daughter. One employer moved
her from her dispatcher job to a driver position. While working as a driver, she was
involved in a car accident, which led to her discharge. She was fired from another
position after she was accused of mishandling time cards. She denies this conduct and
disputed the reason for her termination with her employer. During the last 10 years, she
was unemployed five times for a total of 19 months. Sometimes she collected
unemployment benefits, and sometimes she did not. Applicant entered all this
information on her SF 85P. She discussed her employment history with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) investigator and at the hearing.4
Between 2003 and 2013, Applicant’s earnings ranged from $2 an hour plus tips
to $14.75 an hour. Except for her restaurant jobs, Applicant jobs generally paid $10 an
hour. Her present job pays $14.06 an hour.5
Applicant is currently on medical leave from her job and has applied for short-
term disability leave. Her absence from work has resulted in a loss of income and
created additional financial stress for her.6
The SOR identified 21 purportedly continuing delinquencies totaling
approximately $37,000, as reflected by credit reports from 2013 and 2014. 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
account numbers, in some instances eliminating the last four digits and in others
eliminating other digits. After considering all the evidence, I find the following with
respect to the alleged debts.
Applicant paid SOR allegation 1.c ($438) as shown on the May 2014 credit
report. The creditor in SOR allegation 1.a ($1,398) obtained a judgment against
Applicant and instituted garnishment proceedings. Her wages have been garnished at
the rate of approximately 15% of her net pay each paycheck. Applicant states that this
The September 2013 credit report lists two federal education loans: one for $6000 with a balance due of7
$2,017 and one for $3500 with a balance due of $614 and indicates that these loans were assigned to the
government for collection. GE 3. The May 2014 credit report lists six education loans: three for $6,000 with
the same account number and three for $3,500 with the same account number. It also indicates that four of
the accounts have been transferred or sold. The remaining two accounts are not past-due. In her response
to the SOR, Applicant provided a copy of one page from an April 23, 2014 credit report, which indicates both
accounts are in good standing. The account numbers match those on the May 2014 credit report. I find that
Applicant has two education loans with the government. GE 3; GE 4; Response to SOR.
Response to SOR; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 17-19, 21, 27, 29-32, 58, 60, 62, 65, 69-72.8
Response to SOR; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 19, 21-24, 61-63.9
Tr. 18-19, 22-28, 32-33, 59, 63-64, 67, 72.10
4
debt is the same as the debt in SOR allegation 1.p ($4,775) because the owners of the
apartment complex changed.  She did not provide proof of the ownership change or that
the debts are the same. As of April 2014, she had paid $833 on this debt. Applicant
believes the education debt in SOR allegation 1.n ($963) is the same as the federal
education debts in SOR allegations 1.q ($2,017) and 1.r ($614) but she did not provide
supporting documentation to support her belief.  Under a payment plan, she pays $15 a7
month on allegation 1.r which, as of March 2014, has a remaining balance due of $557
on a $3,500 loan and $50 a month on allegation 1.q which, as of March 2014, has a
remaining balance due of $1,843 on a $6,000 loan, for a total monthly payment of $66.
She is current on her payments for these student loan debts. Applicant testified that the
debt in SOR 1.e ($205) is paid because she continues to have service with this creditor,
and her bills are current. She has not provided documentation to support her claimed
payment.8
SOR allegations 1.f ($304) and 1.k ($137) relate to the same utilities. Applicant
believes that approximately one-half of the 1.f debt was resolved when she returned a
company device. SOR allegation 1.h ($1,285) is a cell phone debt, which Applicant
believes has  been reduced to $435. She has spoken with the creditor, but is unable to
pay the debt at this time. The debt in SOR allegation 1.I ($788) is a cable bill incurred by
her brother, whom she allowed to open the account in her name. He paid $125 on the
debt, but is currently unemployed. She has spoken to him about the debt. Applicant
disputed the medical debt in SOR allegation 1.d ($218), which is noted on the May 2014
credit report. She believes insurance should have paid the bill, but she has not received
a response to her dispute. Applicant did not provide any documentation showing the
status of these debts.9
Applicant has not paid the debts alleged in SOR allegations 1.b ($613), 1.g
($1,283), 1.j ($173), 1.l ($1,768), 1.m ($12,806), 1.o ($3,338), 1.s ($100), 1.t ($378),
and 1.u ($3,144). Her largest debt is the result of actions taken by her children’s father.
She has not received credit counseling nor has she developed a clear plan to resolve
her debts.10
Attachment to Response to SOR. 11
5
Applicant’s April 2014 leave and earnings statement reflects that she earns
approximately $2,250 a month in gross income for an 80-hour work period. She also
earns some shift differential, and in that pay period, she worked 5.5 hours of overtime.
Her net income per month varies, depending upon the hours of overtime worked.
Without overtime, her net monthly income is estimated at approximately $1,750. Her
monthly expenses are not fully shown in the record. She is paying $66 a month on her
education loan, but the amount she pays for rent, utilities, phones, food, and
transportation is not shown. At the time of the hearing, Applicant had been without
income because of her medical leave, and she was behind in her rent one month.11
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
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,
6
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).  
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. 
Applicant developed significant financial problems over the last ten years. She
has been unable to satisfy many of her debts. Most of the debts have not been
resolved. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
7
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate trustworthiness 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 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.
Some of Applicant’s debts are old, but some of her debts are recent. The
evidence of record reflects a long history of debt, some of which are resolved and much
of which are not resolved. With her current lack of income, her financial problems are
increasing. Her debts are continuing and ongoing, making AG ¶ 20(a) inapplicable. 
Over the last ten years, Applicant has been unemployed five times for a total of
19 months. Her unemployment has been due at times to circumstances which were
beyond her control and at other times, due to her own actions. Her financial problems
are more the resault of her relatively low income rather than her unemployment. During
much of the last ten years, she earned approximately $10 an hour, making it difficult for
her to pay her current expenses and even more difficult for her to pay past-due debts,
although she has paid a few. At times, she worked two jobs to pay her living expenses
and the expenses related to raising three children. Given her efforts to resolve some of
her debts and her ongoing payments on three debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.q, and 1.r), AG ¶¶
20(b) and 20(d) partially apply.
Applicant has not received financial counseling. Her finances are not under
control and most of her debts are unresolved. As of the hearing, Applicant was on
unpaid medical leave, creating further financial difficulties for her. At this time, there is
8
little evidence that her financial problems are under control or likely to be resolved in the
near future. AG ¶ 20(c) is not applicable.
Applicant had a legitimate reason to dispute the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d because she
had medical insurance which should have paid the bill. AG ¶ 20(e) applies only to this
debt.
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.
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
9
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  Applicant is a single mother, who is
raising three children on her own without financial support from their father. She has
recently returned to school to increase her education and to improve her earning
capability. Her work history for the last 10 years reflects periods of unemployment, due
in part to circumstances beyond her control and in part to her actions. While her
unemployment contributed to her financial problems to some degree, her limited income
during most of this time is the primary reason for her debts and inability to resolve her
debts. Her financial problems are increasing because she has been on unpaid medical
leave. At present, she does not have a plan to resolve her debts nor has she
established a track record for debt resolution. She has a willingness to resolve her
financial situation, but at this time she lacks the financial resources to pay her past-due
debts and even some customary living expenses. Her debts remain a concern about her
trustworthiness
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and 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 from her
financial issues under Guideline F.
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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
10
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e -1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.s-1.u Against Applicant
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