1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Redacted] )  ADP Case No. 14-04484 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on July 18, 2013. On December 4, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent 
her a Statement of Reasons (SOR), citing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. 
DOD acted under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); DOD 
Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended 
(Regulation); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on 
September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant received the SOR on December 16, 2014; answered it on January 11, 
2015; and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel 
was ready to proceed on February 26, 2015, and the case was assigned to me on 
March 4, 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent her a notice 
of hearing on March 9, 2015, scheduling the hearing for March 25, 2015. I convened the 
hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 4 were admitted in evidence 
2 
 
without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A and B, 
which were admitted without objection.  I kept the record open until April 17, 2015, to 
enable her to submit additional documentary evidence. She timely submitted AX C 
through E, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on 
April 7, 2015. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted SOR ¶ 1.a in part and admitted 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d-1.k, 1.m-1.u, 1.x-1.gg, with explanations. She denied SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.v, and 
1.w. She neither denied nor admitted 1.c and 1.l. Her admissions in her answer and at 
the hearing are incorporated in my findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 32-year-old customer service representative employed by a federal 
contractor since June 2013. She served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from November 
2001 to November 2008 and received an honorable discharge. She received a security 
clearance in November 2001, which was administratively terminated after she left active 
duty.  
 
 Applicant married in November 2004 and separated in May 2006. She has a ten-
year-old son. She receives no fixed amount of child support. She testified, “I have to ask 
for money. It’s not like he just gives it to me or I receive a monthly thing.” (Tr. 43.) 
 
 Applicant lived with her mother until she was six years old and then lived with an 
aunt. She knows very little about her father. (GX 1 at 24.) Her lack of family involvement 
motivated her to join the Job Corps and then enlist in the Navy. Applicant had no 
contact with her mother until the birth of her son in 2004, after her mother was released 
from a drug rehabilitation facility. Applicant lived with her mother two years. Her mother 
stole money and property from her to support her drug addiction, and then stole her car 
and gave it to a drug dealer. Her mother was murdered in 2012 by her boyfriend, also a 
drug addict. (Tr. 45-47.) 
 
Applicant injured her back while in the Navy, was placed on the temporary 
disability retired list (TDRL) in November 2008, and began receiving disability 
retirement, which was significantly less than her active-duty pay. (Tr. 30, 40, 42.)  
 
Applicant was unemployed and attended school from December 2008 to May 
2010. (Tr. 49.) Her student loans are deferred and not alleged in the SOR. (Tr. 50-51.) 
She held private-sector customer service positions from May 2010 to February 2012, 
when she was fired because her employer was not satisfied with the medical 
justification for a leave of absence when she had spinal surgery. (GX 1 at 14-15.) She 
was unemployed from February 2012 until she began her current position in June 2013. 
While unemployed, she received VA benefits of $900 per month. (Tr. 56.) 
 
Applicant had spinal surgery in February 2011, was removed from the TDRL, and 
received $25,000 in severance pay. She used her severance pay to pay off a $3,400 
deficiency from a repossessed car, bought furniture and clothing, and paid off her 
3 
 
mother’s $4,500 debt to a drug dealer. She paid $1,800 as a deposit for the home she 
now occupies. She admitted that she “spoiled” her son by spending a significant amount 
to buy him new clothes “and educational tablets and things like that.” (Tr. 57.). She 
spent $2,000 to put her mother in a hotel to keep her away from the drug dealers and 
her abusive boyfriend. (Tr. 58-62.) She also bought another car, but she was unable to 
make the payments on the car, and it was repossessed. The judgment for $3,416, 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r, was filed against Applicant in February 2012 for the deficiency 
after repossession. The judgment is unsatisfied (Tr. 89; GX 4 at 1.) In 2013, she spent 
$2,000 on her grandmother’s funeral. Her father was at the funeral with “his hand out,” 
and she gave him $500. (Tr. 71.) 
 
 The SOR alleges 33 debts, totaling more than $60,000, reflected on her credit 
bureau reports (CBRs) from July 2013, June 2014, and February 2015.1 (GX 2, 3, and 
4.) Fifteen debts are medical debts. Applicant presented no evidence of efforts to 
resolve the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.d, 1.r, 1.t-1.w, 1.y, 1.z, 1.dd, and 1.gg. 
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the cell phone debt for $2,116 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. At the hearing, she testified that she and her mother had a 
prepaid cell phone with this creditor, and that she recently was offered a contract by the 
creditor. (Tr. 87-88.) Her July 2013 CBR reflects a cell phone account that was referred 
for collection in March 2011 and has been paid. (GX 2 at 20.) Her June 2014 CBR 
reflects another cell phone account with the same service provider that was referred for 
collection in September 2012 for $2,116, and it is unresolved. (GX 3 at 2.)  
 
Applicant attributed her medical expenses (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.e, 1.i-1.q, 1.bb, 1.cc, 
1.ee, and 1.ff) to her spinal surgery. At the hearing, she testified that she lived too far 
away from the VA medical center and went to local emergency rooms for relief when 
she was in severe pain. She still suffers from intense pain and requires strong 
medications, which sometimes cause her to miss work. (Tr. 92.) She intends to submit 
the medical bills to the VA and seek payment from the VA if they are for her service-
connected injuries. She also believes that some of the medical bills may be covered by 
TRICARE. (Tr. 35, 38.) She testified that she had already typed letters to her medical 
creditors, and that she would submit copies of the letters and any responses before the 
record closed. (Tr. 100-02.) I kept the record open so that she could submit copies of 
her letters and any responses. However, she did not submit any documentary evidence 
of her efforts to resolve these debts.   
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed that the medical debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.i 
and 1.j are the same debt. The evidence reflects that they are separate debts. Although 
both debts are for $348, her June 2014 CBR reflects that one account was opened in 
August 2012 and the other was opened in March 2014. The date of last activity on one 
is April 2012 and on the other is November 2013, and they have different account 
numbers. (GX 3 at 2.) 
 
                                                          
1 The SOR alleges that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.e, and 1.i-1.q are reflected on a CBR dated July 27, 
2014. There is no CBR bearing this date in the record. However, GX 3 is dated June 17, 2014. 
4 
 
 Applicant also claimed that the tuition debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.x are the 
same debt. The evidence reflects two separate debts owed to the same creditor. They 
are for different amounts, have different account numbers, and were referred for 
collection on different dates. Applicant testified that she was currently enrolled in a class 
for medical coding and billing, and that she previously was enrolled in a pharmacy 
technician class but did not complete it. (Tr. 84-85.) It appears that the two debts were 
for separate classes. The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f was referred for collection in July 2012, and 
the debt in SOR ¶ 1.x was referred in January 2013. (GX 2 at 16; GX 3 at 2.) Applicant 
testified that she was paying this creditor $49 per month and her payments were 
current. (Tr. 85.) She provided no documentation of the $49 payments. In February 
2015, she received a settlement offer for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f. (AX C). She stated that 
she made the first of three $108 payments, but she was unable to produce 
documentation of the payments. (AX C.) Her March 2015 CBR does not reflect the SOR 
¶ 1.x debt, suggesting that it was paid or absorbed into the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f. However, 
the CBR reflects the SOR ¶ 1.f debt as unpaid, with a balance due of $545. (AX A.)  
 
 In March 2015, Applicant also received an offer to settle the $538 credit card 
debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g for $269 in four monthly payments. (AX D.) There is no 
evidence that she accepted the offer or made any payments. (Tr. 37-38, 84.) 
 
 The $440 jewelry store debt alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.s arose when Applicant 
gave her husband a power of attorney while she was deployed at sea, and her husband 
bought jewelry in her name. SOR ¶ 1.h is the debt underlying the judgment in SOR ¶ 
1.s. Applicant has settled this debt. (AX E; Tr. 35-36, 64-66.) 
 
 Applicant testified that she received a written settlement offer for the $179 debt 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.aa and made a payment agreement providing for monthly $20 
payments. She did not submit documentation of her agreement or proof of payments. 
(Tr. 96.) 
 
 Applicant has rented the same house since 2012. The house was sold and the 
new owners increased her rent from $900 to $950. She recently accepted an offer from 
the new owners to purchase the house under a rent-to-own contract, which will reduce 
her monthly payments from $950 to $899. Applicant lives in the house with her son and 
a 27-year-old friend who is unemployed. Applicant does not charge her friend rent and 
provides her food and clothing. (Tr. 69-70.) In early 2013, the aunt who raised Applicant 
and two teenagers who were living with her aunt also moved in with Applicant and 
stayed until December 2013. The additional occupants in Applicant’s house caused her 
electricity bill to increase from $80 per month to $250 per month. (Tr. 72-73.) 
 
 Applicant’s answer to the SOR includes a detailed budget reflecting net income 
of $2,691, expenses of $2,362, and a net remainder of $329. She has never sought 
financial counseling. She devised her monthly budget by using resources she found on 
the internet. (Tr. 75-77.) Her budget does not include payments for the debts alleged in 
the SOR. (Tr. 95.) She stated that she plans to pay off her debts at $100 per month, 
starting with the smaller debts and working her way up to the larger debts.  
 
5 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.” 
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 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.” Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1. DOD contractor personnel are 
entitled to the procedural protections in the Directive before any final unfavorable 
access determination may be made. Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.  
 
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. 
Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may 
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard sensitive information.  
 
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 an evaluation of the 
whole person. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, 
impartial and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all 
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and 
unfavorable.  
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Under AG 
¶ 2(b), “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to [sensitive] 
information will be resolved in favor of national security.” The Government must present 
substantial evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ 
E3.1.14. Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant has the ultimate burden of 
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant or continue 
eligibility for access to sensitive information.  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The concern under this guideline 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 
6 
 
protect classified information. An individual who is financially 
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds. 
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly 
compromise sensitive or classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses 
concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to 
protecting sensitive or classified information. An individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and 
safeguarding sensitive or classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 
(App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, her CBRs, and her testimony at the hearing establish two 
disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). 
 
 The following mitigating conditions under this guideline are potentially applicable: 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
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; 
 
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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(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. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are numerous, 
ongoing, and were not incurred under circumstances making them unlikely to recur. 
 
AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. Applicant encountered several conditions beyond 
her control: her marital breakup, her back injury, her drug-addicted mother’s theft, the 
expenses incurred in an effort to protect her mother, and her husband’s financial 
irresponsibility while holding a power of attorney from Applicant. On the other hand, her 
7 
 
generosity toward free-loading family members and friends was a condition that she 
could control. She acted responsibly by resolving the jewelry store debt in SOR ¶ 1.h, 
but she has not acted responsibly regarding the other delinquent debts. She claimed to 
have made payments on several debts but has not documented those payments. She 
has a plan to resolve her medical debts, but she produced no evidence of significant 
actions to execute the plan. She testified that she intends to begin paying off the smaller 
debts and then progressing to the larger debts, but her smallest debts remain unpaid. A 
promise to pay a delinquent debt in the future is not a substitute for a track record of 
paying debts in a timely manner. ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 
2008). 
 
 AG ¶ 20(c) is not established. Applicant has not received financial counseling 
beyond her personal internet research, and her financial situation is not under control. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) is established for the jewelry store debt in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.s. It is 
not established for the other debts alleged in the SOR. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) is not established. Applicant denied several debts in the SOR, but 
she has not articulated or documented a basis for disputing the debts. She has not filed 
any disputes with the original creditors, collection agencies, or credit reporting agencies. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 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. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
public trust position by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances. An 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.  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person 
analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but 
some warrant additional comment. 
 
 Applicant was candid and sincere at the hearing. She has had a difficult life, 
without a stable family or role models. She suffered a debilitating injury in the Navy. She 
has been generous to her family and friends, often to her financial detriment. She knows 
8 
 
what she needs to do to begin resolving her financial problems, but apparently lacks the 
discipline to do it. She had an opportunity to resolve many of her debts when she 
received $25,000 in severance pay. She paid off one delinquent debt, but squandered 
much of the remainder.  
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her financial problems. 
Accordingly, I conclude she has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly 
consistent with national security to grant her eligibility for a public trust position. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h:     For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.i-1.r:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.s:     For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.t-1.w:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.x:     For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.y-1.gg:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant 
eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. 
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge