The SOR caption mistakenly identifies this case  as an Industrial Security Clearance Review case.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 12-06057
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s ongoing financial problems and her failure to address them render
her an unacceptable candidate for occupying an automatic data processing (ADP)
position. 
Statement of the Case
On September 19, 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 was1
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 October 6, 2014, admitting subparagraphs 1.e
through 1.n, and denying the remainder. She requested a decision on the written record.
On December 22, 2014, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials
(FORM). Applicant received the FORM on January 8, 2015 and did not submit a reply.
The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old woman with four children, ranging in age from 3 to 18.
She has been married since 2012. She is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, serving from
1999, shortly after finishing high school, to 2008. (Item 4 at 16) She has spent her career
working at various banks and health insurance companies as a professional service
representative. She has been working with her current employer since June 2011. (Item
5 at 7)
Over the past nine years, Applicant has incurred approximately $18,000 of
delinquent debt. She first began having problems in 2007, when she lost her job and was
subsequently unemployed for six months. (Item 4 at 10) While unemployed, she decided
to use credit cards “not wanting to deny [her] growing family the lifestyle they had
become accustomed.” (Item 3 at 2) 
Applicant again experienced a period of financial difficulties in 2010 after being
fired after her application for extended medical leave before undergoing major
reconstructive knee surgery was rejected. (Item 5 at 4) She was unemployed for the next
18 months.
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c, and 1.o through 1.r are primarily medical bills.
Applicant denies these allegations, contending that the credit reporting agencies
removed them from her credit reports after she disputed them. (Item 3) She provided
neither any explanation as to why these debts were removed, nor any updated credit
reports supporting her contention that they were removed.  
Applicant’s responsibility to pay the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d was
formally cancelled. (Item 5 at 17) As for the remainder of the SOR debts, Applicant is
either contending that the statute of limits governing their collectability has tolled, or she
is waiting for the statute of limitations governing their collectability to toll. (Item 3)
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
3
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. 
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 $18,000 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 debt listed in subparagraph 1.d was formally cancelled. I resolve
subparagraph 1.d in her favor.
Applicant’s financial problems stem from lengthy periods of unemployment. Her
most recent unemployment occurred shortly after she underwent major reconstructive
knee surgery. Conversely, Applicant admits that she used her credit cards irresponsibly
after the 2007 job loss. As for the debts she incurred after the 2010 job loss, she has
done nothing other than wait for the statute of limitations governing their collectability to
toll.  Under these circumstances, 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 partially applies. 
Applicant’s failure to take any steps to either pay or otherwise resolve her debts
also renders AG ¶¶ 20(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,” and 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts,” inapplicable.
Applicant’s denial of subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c, and 1.o through 1.r is not
supported by any documentary evidence. Consequently, AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual has
a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of
4
the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the bass of the dispute or
provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” does not 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, merely waiting for the period that her debts are legally
collectable to expire is not a strategy that mitigates the trustworthiness concern.
Similarly, Applicant may have actually paid the disputed medical bills. However, absent
any substantiating documentation, I cannot reach this conclusion. Ultimately, Applicant’s
unsettled financial problems continue to raise issues regarding her reliability and
trustworthiness.
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.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e-1.r: Against Applicant
5
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national security to grant Applicant eligibility to occupy an
ADP position. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an ADP position is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge