As defined in Chapter 3 and Appendix 10 of DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, as amended (Regulation).1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ADP Case No. 12-05715
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Michael H. Montgomery, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has always managed her finances responsibly; however, she recently
experienced significant financial problems that were caused by circumstances beyond
her control. Nonetheless, she is acting in a prompt and good-faith manner to resolve her
past-due debts. In so doing, she has demonstrated good judgment, integrity, and
reliability. Her request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is granted.
Statement of the Case
On August 30, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position  for her1
 Required by the Regulation, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive).2
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006. These guidelines were3
published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 
2
job with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background
investigation, DOD adjudicators were unable to determine that it is clearly consistent
with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s request for a position of trust.  2
On September 29, 2014, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts which, if proven, raise trustworthiness concerns addressed through the
adjudicative guideline (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely3
responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to
me on January 19, 2015, and I convened a hearing on February 11, 2015. Department
Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) presented
Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4. Applicant and one other witness testified. Applicant
also presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - M. The record closed on February 23,
2015, when I received Applicant’s post-hearing submission, which is included in the
record as Ax. N. All exhibits were admitted without objection. DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on March 2, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $52,875 for 35
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.ii). All but two (SOR 1.a and 1.b) of the debts
alleged are for unpaid medical bills. Applicant admitted all of the allegations. In addition
to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, and based on all available
information, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 52 years old and is employed by a defense contractor as a project
leader in a position that requires eligibility for a position of trust. Her employer supports
management of the health care system used by members of the military, and Applicant
must be found suitable to be entrusted with personally identifiable information (PII)
associated with the health care system’s constituents. From 1999 until 2003, Applicant
worked as a human resources specialist for another company involved in this work, and
she first received eligibility for a position of trust for that job. She then left that
employment for a few years to help her husband run a small business. Applicant was
hired by her current employer in March 2007. From then until about July 2009, Applicant
earned about $125,000 annually as a project leader. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax A; Ax. B)
In about February 2009, Applicant developed serious health issues and was told
she would have to undergo major surgery. Applicant and her husband then started
saving for the expenses involved with such an operation. Applicant’s health insurance
only partially covered her required surgical and other medical services. Additionally, her
employer offered very little paid time off regardless of the reason given. Thus, she knew
she would be out of work without pay for about two months while she recovered from
3
surgery. Applicant and her husband decided to delay the surgery long enough to draw
on their retirement savings, and reduced expenses to cover what they thought would be
a predictable period of lost income. After her surgery, some debts remained; however,
Applicant and her husband were in regular contact with those creditors and were
arranging repayment plans. (Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 23 - 24)
Applicant underwent surgery in July 2009. However, severe complications
developed because the surgeon severed Applicant’s ureter. She underwent emergency
surgery in late July, but was told she would have to undergo another surgery to correct
the damage caused during the initial surgery. Applicant did not have insurance to cover
this unexpected procedure, and she and her husband had already depleted their
savings to pay for the first operation and to cover her lost income. It was not until
December 2010, when Applicant qualified for medical insurance coverage under the
new Affordable Care Act (ACA) despite a pre-existing condition, that Applicant was able
to schedule the corrective surgery. She underwent a successful procedure in May 2011,
and she was fully recovered about two months later. However, the ACA did not cover all
of her expenses. The medical debts alleged in SOR 1.c - 1.ii represent the uncovered
costs of her care. (Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 24 - 29)
Applicant was unable to work from July 2009 until August 2011. She and her
husband subsisted on income from his small business and her disability benefits. Her
lack of income caused her and her husband, at times, to be unable to timely pay their
obligations. However, available information shows they were proactive in dealing with
their creditors to resolve any past-due amounts. For example, in 2009 and 2010, they
fell behind on their mortgage, but were able to work with their lender to bring their
mortgage current. (Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Ax. A; Tr. 43)
When Applicant returned to work, she was physically unable to work in the same
position she had held before July 2009. From August 2011 until August 2014, Applicant
worked as a project coordinator. Her annual income in that position was about $40,000
less than she was earning before July 2009. However, in August 2014, she was
promoted back to a project leader position that pays almost as much as she made
before July 2009. Applicant has been corresponding with her medical creditors since the
time of her corrective surgery. She anticipates being able to make regular payments
now that she has more income. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. B; Ax. D; Ax. H; Tr. 74 - 76)
Applicant and her husband filed a malpractice suit against her surgeon and
related medical providers. A trial resulted in a hung jury, and Applicant has negotiated a
nominal settlement. The lawyer who represented Applicant in her malpractice action is
also assisting Applicant and her husband as they negotiate with her creditors. With his
assistance, Applicant has also been able to identify several medical debts that are not
accurate because they are not attributable to Applicant; they have been resolved; or
they are duplicates being reported by multiple collection agencies. To date, Applicant
has paid about $25,000 toward her medical costs. (Ax. D - G; Ax; H; Ax. J; Ax. L; Tr. 54
- 58)
 Regulation, ¶ C3.6.15. 4
 Regulation, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 5
 Regulation, ¶ C8.2.1. 6
 Directive. 6.3.7
4
The debt alleged at SOR 1.a is for a delinquent credit card account. The debt at
SOR 1.b is for a delinquent personal loan. Applicant was current on both accounts until
2011. She is now repaying both debts at a rate of $200 per month each under
agreements with the collection firms who currently hold those accounts. (Gx. 1 - 4; Ax.
A; Ax. G - I; Tr. 43 - 47)
Applicant and her husband have been married since 1985 and have three adult
children. Applicant’s husband has always earned income as a self-employed small
businessman. Together, they have always managed their finances in a prudent and
responsible manner. Their credit before her 2009 operation was excellent. Updated
information about their monthly income and expenses shows that they have not incurred
any new debts since 2011. After meeting their regular monthly expenses, including the
debt payment agreements documented in their exhibits, they now have about $1,100
remaining. (Gx. 2 - 4; Ax. A; Ax. B; Ax. M; Tr. 23 - 24, 63 - 86)
Applicant is an excellent employee. Performance evaluations since 2009 reflect
a superior work ethic, and outstanding reliability and professionalism. Applicant and her
husband are active in their church and have lived a modest lifestyle that is conducive to
stability and responsibility. When Applicant was trying to figure out how she would pay
for her corrective surgery, members of her church raised several thousand dollars to
help defray her expenses. (Ax. A; Ax. K - M; Tr. 83 - 89)
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I/II/III are classified as “sensitive positions.”  In4
deciding whether a person should be assigned to an ADP position, it must be
determined that his or her loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that it is
“clearly consistent with the interests of national security” to do so.  The Regulation also5
requires that DOD contractor personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the
Directive before any adverse determination may be made.6
The Directive requires that each decision be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,7
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies in the adjudicative
guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the
new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:
(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
5
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 presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of eligibility for a position of trust.
The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a position of trust for an
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one is entitled to a
position of trust, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. A person who has
access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government
based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling interest in
ensuring applicants possess the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of
one who will protect sensitive information as his or her own. Any reasonable doubt
about an applicant’s suitability for access should be resolved in favor of the
Government.
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations. The facts
established raise a trustworthiness concern about Applicant’s finances that is addressed
at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
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 overextended
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.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations). As to AG ¶ 19(a), the record shows
Applicant has been unable, not unwilling, to repay her past-due debts.
6
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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;
and
 
(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.
All of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s financial problems were
entirely caused by unexpected medical problems, and arose in spite of her best efforts
to plan for her medical care. After a prolonged period of unemployment, during which
she and her husband successfully endured several financial difficulties, including
resolving late payments on their mortgage, Applicant now is able to make progress in
repaying or otherwise resolving her remaining debts. With the help of legal counsel,
Applicant has been in regular, constructive contact with her creditors to negotiate
mutually agreeable repayment plans. With her recently increased annual income, her
monthly finances are sound and she has significant cash flow. The circumstances giving
rise to her debts are unlikely to recur, and she has demonstrated good judgment and
reliability through the responsible way she and her husband have responded to financial
adversity. The record shows her financial problems are under control, and supports
application of the mitigating conditions at AG ¶¶ 20(a) - (c). The trustworthiness
concerns raised by Applicant’s financial problems are mitigated. 
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guideline F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of the
whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Specifically, I note Applicant’s response to her
financial problems, her complete candor about those problems, and her record of
properly protecting sensitive information. A fair and commonsense assessment of all
available information shows that the Government’s concerns about Applicant’s
trustworthiness have been satisfied.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.ii: For Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national
security for Applicant to occupy a position of trust. Applicant’s request for ADP eligibility
is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge