1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 12-03624
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
The majority of Applicant’s delinquent difficulties are related to medical issues
rather than irresponsible spending. However, she has failed to take any steps to
address them. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an automatic data processing (ADP)
position is denied.
Statement of the Case
On March 13, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DODCAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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 (Directive) (January 2, 1992),
as amended, and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006.
2
Applicant answered the SOR on March 25, 2014, admitting the allegations and
requesting a decision on the written record.  On May 30, 2014, Department Counsel
prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM). Applicant received the FORM on June 2,
2014, and did not submit a reply. The case was assigned to me on August 17, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 29-year-old single mother of two children, ages ten and six. She
graduated from high school and has received some vocational training over the years.
Since 2005, she has worked for an insurance company that supports a DOD agency.
(Item 4 at 10)
As of January 2012, Applicant had incurred approximately $12,700 of delinquent
debt. Nearly all of it constituted medical bills. (Item 5 at 7-10) When asked about this
debt during an interview in February 2012, Applicant explained that because she had no
health care insurance, she used her community’s urgent care facility to treat non-
emergency health conditions, and was subsequently unable to afford the medical bills.
(Item 5 at 6, 23) She further explained that she could not afford to pay the bills, but
promised to pay them when she was able. (Item 5 at 22)
As of March 2014, Applicant had not paid any of her debts. (Item 3) She contends
that she has no additional funds available to pay her debts and that the debts do not
impact her ability to perform her job. (Item 3 at 5) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s trustworthiness, the administrative judge must
consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, 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, these guidelines 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 administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
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 as to obtaining a favorable
trustworthiness determination. 
3
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) Over the years, Applicant has incurred more than $12,000 of delinquent debt, which
remains outstanding. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶
19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.
Applicant’s financial problems did not occur because of her living beyond her
means. Instead, they stem primarily from medical bills that she could not afford.
Nevertheless, applicants have a responsibility to take concrete steps to address their
delinquent debts regardless of how they incurred them. Applicant has not done anything.
Consequently, 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,” only applies partially, and none of the other
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): 
(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.
The circumstances surrounding Applicant’s accrual of delinquent debts are
partially mitigating. However, her failure to meet financial obligations raises questions
about her judgment and willingness to abide by rules and regulations. So long as these
questions are outstanding, I am unable to conclude that she possesses the requisite
reliability and trustworthiness to occupy an ADP position. 
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:
4
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.gg: 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 eligibility to occupy an
ADP position. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an ADP position is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge