1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ADP Case No. 14-03303
)
)
Applicant for Position of Public Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Philip A. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Before Applicant obtained his present employment in 2013, he could only find
part-time employment for three years. Since 2013, he has paid off two of the listed
creditors and has developed a meaningful track record of satisfying his remaining
delinquent debts. Eligibility for public trust position is granted.  
Statement of the Case
On November 11, 2013, Applicant signed and certified an electronic
questionnaires for investigations processing (e-QIP) (Item 2). On June 16, 2014, the
Department of Defense (DOD) issued the Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
trustworthiness concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F). (Item 1) The
action was taken under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on September 1,
2006. 
 The credit report (March 19, 2015) is dated after the date of the SOR. 1
 Memorandum for Department Counsel, July 1, 2015. 2
2
Applicant furnished his answer to the SOR on June 9, 2014. He chose to have
his case decided on the administrative record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the
Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government’s evidence in support
of the allegations of the SOR, was sent to Applicant on April 22, 2015. (The FORM
contains Item 1, Item 2, and a March 19, 2015 credit report (Item 3).  In an attachment1
to the FORM, Applicant was advised he could object to the information in the FORM or
submit additional information in explanation, mitigation, or extenuation. He received the
FORM on January 6, 2015. His response is dated June 10, 2015, however, there is no
timestamp on the response to indicate when it was received by DOHA. On July 1, 2015,
Department Counsel indicated he had no objection to Applicant’s response.  The case2
was assigned to me on July 18, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges 15 delinquent accounts for credit cards and medical services.
The total debt amount is $16,237. Applicant admitted 11 accounts and denied the
remainder. He claimed that accounts SOR 1.i, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.l, are the original creditors
who sold their accounts to collection agencies. He believes the SOR 1.i creditor sold its
account to the collection agency at 1.a; SOR 1j sold to collection agency at SOR 1.b;
SOR 1.k sold to the collection agency at SOR 1.e; and SOR 1.l sold to the collection
agency at SOR 1.c. When the duplicate entries and SOR 1.h and 1.m are removed from
the SOR, Applicant believes he owes only about $7,183. Applicant is correct. My
calculations show that when the collection accounts (SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.e) and the
satisfied accounts (SOR 1.h, and 1.m) are subtracted from $16,237, the balance is
$7,762. The last payment activity on the delinquent debts was between 2009 and June
2012. See Item 3
Applicant is 32 years old and married. His wife recently gave birth to a daughter.
Since March 2012, he has been living in a home owned by his mother. Though he pays
no rent for the dwelling, he contributes to the utilities. From August 2005 to December
2009, he earned credits at a technical college. In August 2011, he received an
associate’s degree in sports management. Recently, Applicant earned a bachelor’s
degree in applied behavioral science. He intends to pursue a master’s degree in
business administration.  
Before he started his present job in 2013, Applicant was employed part-time as a
youth counselor from May 2011 to May 2012. In four different periods since May 2006,
he was employed part-time in the ice cream department of a restaurant. He was also
unemployed several times during the period. His last full-time employment was from
May 2006 to June 2010, when he was an athletic director for a charitable organization.
A downturn in the economy forced him out of his position, but he was unable to collect
3
unemployment compensation because he was employed by a faith-based non-profit
organization. (Answer to SOR; Item 2 at 12-24)
Applicant indicated that he talked with every creditor about the delinquent debts
and promised them that he was trying to address the debts as his earnings permitted.
The delinquent debts will be discussed in the order they appear in the SOR. 
SOR 1.a, credit card in collection for $2,627. The original creditor is listed at SOR
1.i where the debt is charged off in an amount of $1,686. Though Applicant explained in
answer to the SOR that he would begin negotiations on this account when his other
payment plans were resolved, he learned that the debt identifying the original creditor
appears a second time in his credit report. He decided to try to remove one of the debts
so the correct debt would appear in his credit report. Account is unpaid. 
SOR 1.b, credit card in collection for $1,283. The original creditor is listed at SOR
1.j where the debt is charged off in the amount of $800. Applicant had not addressed
this account because he was trying to settle other debts. As he has done in the SOR 1.a
debt, he wanted to remove one of the debts so the correct debt would appear in his
credit report. Account is unresolved. 
SOR 1.c, credit card in collection for $798. The original creditor is listed at 1.l and
where the debt is charged off in the amount of $356. Applicant indicated that he was
handling two other accounts that the collection agency is servicing. Account is
unresolved. 
SOR 1.d, credit card in collection for $718. Applicant noted that a payment plan
was underway, but provided no documentation showing a 12-month payment plan or
that any payments ($47 a month) had been made under the plan. Account is
unresolved. 
SOR 1.e, credit card in collection for $665. The original creditor is listed at SOR
1.k where the debt is charged off in the amount of $199. Applicant claimed a payment
plan was active requiring him to make 12 payments of $47 a month. Applicant provided
no documentation of the plan or proof of payments. Account is unresolved. 
SOR 1.f, credit card charged off in the amount of $627. Applicant claims that the
account should be lower because of payments made. He was unable to make a recent
payment to the creditor because he was paying on other payment plans. However, as
with SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e, Applicant did not identify the other creditors or
provide documentation of the corresponding payment plans. Account is unresolved. 
SOR 1.g, cellular phone account in collection for $227. Applicant avers that he
cancelled his service and returned the creditor’s telephone, but the creditor disagrees.
He claims he is in negotiations to settle the account, but provided no documentation
verifying negoitations. Account is unresolved. 
 The allegations in SOR 1.n and SOR 1.o are based on an April 6, 2013 credit report  that does not appear3
in the FORM.
4
SOR 1.h, cellular phone account in collection for $86. Applicant left a balance
with the creditor after ending his service. He satisfied the debt in March 2014. (Item 3)
SOR 1.m, a credit card account in collection for $5,798. Applicant satisfied the
account in 2014. (Item 3)
SOR 1.n, medical debt for $329. Applicant claimed in his December 2014 answer
to the SOR that he planned to take care of debt within six months. There is no reference
to the debt in Applicant’s response for the FORM dated June 10, 2015. Account is
unresolved.
SOR 1.o, medical debt for $68. Applicant stated that his insurance would not
cover the debt, so Applicant did. No documentation was furnished to substantiate
Applicant’s claim. Account is unresolved.  3
Applicant just received a promotion and increase in pay at his job. Since
beginning his employment in 2013, he indicated that he eliminated $5,854 in delinquent
debt and satisfied the $68 account listed at SOR 1.o. Applicant stated that:
I wish I could pay [the listed debts] off right away, but it is going to take
some time. As I stated in my previous summary I am working with each
[creditor] on my already tight budget. I do accept the challenge and I
assure you that I am an honest man with great integrity. This stable
employment will allow me to pay off this debt and remain in a situation to
take care of my family. I totally understand the importance of this
clearance and I ask that you not revoke my privileges and allow me to
prove that am trustworthy and honest. (FORM response)
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
interest of national security.” Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1. Department of Defense contractor
personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the Directive before any final
unfavorable access determination may be made. Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG) which list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines must be considered
in the context of the nine general factors known as the whole-person concept to enable
5
the administrative judge to consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the public trust is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 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 to support his case for eligibility to a public trust position. 
A person who has access to sensitive information in a public trust position
occupies a fiduciary relationship founded on trust and confidence. In this relationship,
the Government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals it grants access to sensitive information. Decisions under this Directive
include consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately, negligently, or
inadvertently fail to properly protect sensitive information. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The trustworthiness concern for financial considerations is set forth 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
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.
The two pertinent disqualifying conditions that are potentially applicable: AG ¶
19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations). Applicant accumulated $16,237 in delinquent debt to 15
creditors. The debts became delinquent between 2009 and June 2012. However, after
subtracting the four listed duplicate entries and the two satisfied debts from foregoing
total debt of $16,237, the revised total is $7,762. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply.
Four mitigating conditions 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 reliability, trustworthiness,
6
and good judgment); AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person's control 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); and AG ¶ 20(d) (a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts).
AG ¶ 20(a) is inapplicable because Applicant still owes $7,762 in delinquent debt
to nine creditors or collection agencies even though he has incurred no new delinquent
debt since June 2012. 
AG ¶ 20(b) applies when the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were beyond the person’s control, and the individual “acted responsibly under the
circumstances.” Applicant’s last full-time employment ended in June 2010. Until he was
hired into his current position in 2013, he was employed part-time or not employed at
all. He receives considerable mitigation under the first prong of the condition for his
underemployment and unemployment. Though he receives less mitigation for his
actions in accumulating additional delinquent debt until June 2012, some mitigation is
due for his responsible actions in keeping the creditors informed of his economic
situation, his plan to pay smaller debts or negotiate payment plans, and his responsible
action in satisfying two of the listed creditors. 
Though Applicant supplied no evidence of counseling, he provided credible
information that demonstrates he contemplated the steps he would take to repay the
creditors. Item 3 documents his good-faith effort to pay off the account at SOR 1.h.
before he received the SOR. In sum, the evidence reflects that he is regaining control
over his delinquencies. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) have some application. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the financial considerations guideline. I have also weighed the circumstances within the
context of nine variables of the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an
individual's conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following variables
listed in 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 the participation was 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 final trustworthiness decision must be an overall commonsense judgment
based upon careful consideration of the specific guidelines, each of which is to be
evaluated in the context of the whole person. (AG ¶ 2(c)) 
7
Applicant is 32 years old. His wife recently gave birth to their first child, a
daughter. Even though he lost his full-time employment in June 2010, he continued to
pursue his education as evidenced by the associate’s degree in sport’s management
that he received in 2011, and his recent accomplishment of a bachelor’s of arts degree
in applied behavioral science. In addition, he recently was awarded a promotion and a
corresponding increase in his pay. In March 2014, five months before the date of the
SOR, he satisfied the account at SOR 1.h. He also satisfied the account at SOR 1.m.
He still owes $7,762 to nine creditors. 
Applicant is keenly aware he cannot satisfy all the creditors at once. He has
exercised good judgment in informing each creditor of his intention to satisfy all the
delinquent debts as his earnings permit. The DOHA Appeal Board has addressed a key
element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is
not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has ‘...established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement the plan.’ The Judge
can reasonable consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation
and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for
the reduction of his outstanding indebtedenss is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a)(‘Available, reliable information about the person, past
ands present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in
reaching a determination.’) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts
actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be on the ones
listed in the SOR.
(ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008)) (internal citations omitted).
Although I have considered that while Applicant has made several undocumented
claims about payment plans and negotiating settlements with the listed creditors, I
conclude the lack of such evidence demonstrates Applicant’s inexperience in supporting
his stated claims with other documentation besides the Government credit report.
Taking into consideration Applicant’s inability to collect unemployment compensation
while trying to find full-time, stable employment between 2010 and 2013, and the fact
that he incurred no new delinquent debt after June 2012, I conclude that Applicant has
acted responsibly (as his earnings have permitted) to develop “a meaningful track
record” of repaying his delinquent financial obligations. I am confident he will continue to
execute his plan until all delinquent debts are extinguished, so that he can maintain his
budget and responsibly manage his financial matters in the future. Having evaluated the
evidence under the financial considerations guideline in the context of the whole-person
8
concept, Applicant has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns based on the financial
considerations guideline. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).
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 one (Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-o: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for public trust
position. Eligibility for access to public trust position is granted. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge