1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 14-01309
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has taken no concrete steps to address her delinquent debts. Under
these circumstances, her eligibility to occupy an automated data processing (ADP)
position must be denied.
Statement of the Case
On May 22, 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.
Applicant answered the SOR on June 12, 2014, admitting the allegations and
requesting a decision based on the written record. On July 22, 2014, Department
2
Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM). Applicant received the FORM on
August 8, 2014, and submitted a reply on August 25, 2014. The case was assigned to
me on September 30, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old single woman. She graduated from high school in 2002
and earned a bachelor’s degree in 2009. Shortly after graduating from college, Applicant
began working at a homeless shelter. (Item 6 at 14) She worked there for two years
before resigning in 2011 to pursue better job opportunities. (Item 6 at 14) Subsequently,
she was unemployed for the next 15 months before her current employer, a health
insurance company that is a federal government contractor, hired her.
Applicant financed her college education without help from her parents. Although
she balanced her academics with part-time employment and obtained student loans, she
also was overly reliant on credit cards to make ends meet. Some time after quitting her
job in 2011, her debts became delinquent. By the time she began working for her current
employer in 2013, six debts totalling approximately $11,600 were delinquent, including
an overdrawn checking account totalling $95 (SOR subparagraph 1.a), a $619
delinquent phone bill (SOR subparagraph 1.b), three credit cards totalling approximately
$8,000 (SOR subparagraphs 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f), and a student loan totalling $2,760 (SOR
subparagraph 1.d).
A security investigator interviewed Applicant in March 2013. (Item 8) Applicant
told the investigator that she intended to arrange payment plans by April 2013. (Item 8 at
3) By June 2014, Applicant had made no progress on any of the delinquent SOR debt.
She asserted that she was paying an unlisted student loan account, but provided no
documentary evidence. Her plan was to consult a financial counselor to help her
consolidate her debts. (Item 5)
In Applicant’s August 2014 Response to the FORM, she stated that she had
reviewed her credit report and planned on sending letters to her creditors and retaining a
financial planner. She anticipates that with the planner’s help, she will consolidate her
debts and begin making monthly payments. 
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.”
3
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. 
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 incurred approximately $11,600 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 extravagant spending.
Instead, she became overly reliant on credit cards to make ends meet when she was in
college. Moreover, she did not lose control of her finances until she experienced a
lengthy unemployment. Although her unemployment was not beyond her control, as she
voluntarily left her job to pursue other opportunities, she could not have reasonably
expected to be unemployed for more than a year. 
 Nevertheless, applicants have a responsibility to take concrete steps to address
their delinquent debts regardless of how they incurred them. Here, Applicant has been
promising to address her delinquent debts for more than a year and a half, but has not
yet begun to do so. Moreover, she did not submit a budget, and she provided no
evidence that she is receiving financial counseling. 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,” applies partially, with respect to the unexpected time it took her to gain
another job after leaving her job in 2011, but 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): 
4
(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:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: 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