1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
    )       ADP Case No. 14-03869
                    )
)
Applicant for Public Trust Position )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that
Applicant’s eligibility to occupy a public trust position is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigative
Processing (e-QIP) on February 28, 2013. The Department of Defense (DOD)
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations on
January 15, 2015. The action was taken under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
GE 1; Tr. 30, 35.1
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on January 22, 2015. She answered
the SOR in writing on January 30, 2015, and she requested a hearing before an
administrative judge with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 9, 2015, and I received the case
assignment on June 15, 2015. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 25, 2015, and
I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 15, 2015. The Government offered six
exhibits (GE), 1 through 6, which were received, marked, and admitted into evidence
without objection. Applican testified. Applicant submitted 10 exhibits (AE), A through J,
which were received, marked, and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 22, 2015. I held the record open until
July 29, 2015, for the submission of additional matters. On July 28, 2015, she submitted
AE K (budget) and AE L (bankruptcy petition), which were received, marked, and
admitted without objection. Applicant was given additional time to submit one additional
document, which she did. It has been marked as AE M (discharge order). The record
closed on August 31, 2015.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. She also provided additional information to support her request for eligibility for a
public trust position.  
Applicant, who is 61 years old, works as a benefits specialist for a DOD
contractor.  She began working for her employer through a temporary agency position in
February 2013. Her employer converted her to a permanent position in March 2015.
Applicant advised now that she has a permanent position, she has health insurance and
a 401(k) account.
Applicant graduated from high school. Applicant married in October 1974. Her
husband died unexpectedly in October 2001. She has five daughters, who are 34, 32,
31, 28, and 26 years old. None are dependent upon her.1
Applicant, her husband, and their family moved from State A to State B in 1989,
where she lived until 2007. After her husband’s death, Applicant attended a local
community college, where she earned a certificate in medical transcription. She was
unable to find work in this field. She moved from State B to State C in 2007, where she
now lives and works. She obtained a “good” job with a silicon company. When the
economic downturn began, she lost this job in December 2008. Her financial problems
began. Between December 2008 and February 2013, Applicant experienced periods of
unemployment ranging from approximately two months to about one year. She received
unemployment benefits when she was not working. During this same period of time, she
worked various temporary jobs, including school bus driver, cashier, clerk, janitor, clean
room technician, and warehouse worker. In 2011, she returned to school to learn
GE 1; Tr. 31-32, 36.2
GE 6; Tr. 31-33, 54-55.3
Applicant advised that her wages are being garnished by a former landlord for unpaid rent. Her roommate4
was unable to pay her share of the rent, which led to their eviction from the property. She has paid
approximately $1,400 on a debt of around $3,000. AE F; Tr.37-39.
Applicant is saving to pay for her coding certification examination and for an emergency fund. Tr. 52-53, 59.5
AE F; AE K ; Tr. 44-51.6
GE 2- GE 5; Record.7
3
medical billing and coding. She received a certificate when she completed the program.
She is now working and saving money to test to become  a certified coder.2
Applicant is under medical care for high blood pressure and diabetes. In 2008 or
2009, she experienced increased problems with her high blood pressure. She did not
have medical insurance, which contributed to her financial problems, as she did not
have money to pay her increasing medical bills. She tried to pay some of her bills with
her unemployment benefits, but was unable to resolve most of her bills. Her high blood
pressure problems are now managed. She is working with a dietician to help control her
blood sugar and triglycerides.3
Applicant currently earns $16 an hour for regular time and $24 an hour for
overtime. Applicant relies upon overtime earnings to help pay her monthly expenses.
Her gross regular biweekly pay is $1,280 plus overtime. Her actual biweekly earnings
varies. In the five pay periods prior to the hearing, her gross biweekly income ranged
between $1,472 and $2,048, and her net biweekly pay ranged from $706 to $1,250 due
to overtime earnings and a wage garnishment.  Applicant also receives $203 a month in4
a pension benefit from her husband. Her monthly expenses include $576 for rent, $168
for utilities, $80 for phone, $87 for car insurance, $425 for groceries, $100 for pets, $25
for medication, $75 for diabetic supplies, $86 for student loan, $125 for car loan, and
$50 for savings.  Applicant’s expenses total $1,896.5 6
The SOR identifies 16 debts totaling $26,865. Nine debts relate to medical care,
when Applicant lacked medical insurance. These bills total $15,946. Five other debts
concern telecommunications bills and total $1,512. The remaining two bills are a
charged-off car account for $6,607 and a collection account for $2,800. There is no
evidence that Applicant paid any of these bills.  7
On the advice of her bankruptcy attorney, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition on June 23, 2015, seeking discharge of her debts. Applicant and her attorney
met with her creditors as directed by the court. Applicant completed the credit
counseling education required by the court on June 25, 2015. All creditors listed in the
SOR, except the creditors in SOR allegations 1.m ($4,996) and 1.o ($345), and the
These accounts may have been included in her bankruptcy, but the information on the credit reports is8
unclear. The accounts may been transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection agents,
resulting in a possible change in account number or creditor name.
GE 3 - GE 5.9
AE G - AE J; AE L ; AE M; Tr. 34-35, 53.10
4
garnishment debt are listed in her bankruptcy petition.  These two SOR debts are also8
not listed on any credit report after 2013.  After a meeting of her creditors, the court9
discharged Applicant’s debts by Order dated August 31, 2015. Applicant reaffirmed one
debt, which she is paying monthly. Applicant filed her income tax returns each year. She
does not owe any past due taxes.10
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  
Assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s
loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to
sensitive duties is clearly consistent with national interests. The Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19,
2004, indicates trustworthiness adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by
the Defense Security Service and Office of Personnel Management. Department of
Defense contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in the
Directive before any final unfavorable access determination may be made.   
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 the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial, and commonsense decision. 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. In reaching
this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and
based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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 obtain a favorable trustworthiness
decision. 
5
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. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
sensitive information.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations
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
protect [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns.
Under AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying. Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@
may raise security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debt. She was unable to
pay her obligations. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate trustorthiness concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a)
through ¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(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.
6
Applicant’s financial problems began when she lost her technology job in
December 2008. The economic downturn not only impacted her job, it impacted her
ability to find other work. For several years, she relied on unemployment benefits and
part-time employment to pay her basic bills. During this same time, she experienced
increased problems with her blood pressure, necessitating sometimes expensive and
ongoing medical treatment when she lacked health insurance and the ability to pay for
her care. She tried to pay something towards her medical bills with her unemployment
benefits, but she was unable to pay most of her debts. She returned to school to obtain
skills that would enhance her ability to find steady employment. She made a good
decision by returning to school and improving her skills. Applicant’s current position
provides her with health insurance, but not enough income to pay her past-due debts.
She contacted a bankruptcy attorney, and with the assistance of the attorney, she filed
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. She completed a financial counseling course. Her
nonpriority, unsecured debts are now resolved as the court discharged her debts. She
has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns under AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(c).
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position by considering the totality of the
applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. 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) 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.
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. The decision to grant or
deny a trustworthiness determination requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors,
both favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a trustworthiness
concern is established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position should not be made as punishment for
specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of
record to decide if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate
trustworthiness concern.
The evidence in support of granting a trustworthiness determination to Applicant
under the whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of
7
denial. In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
married young and raised five daughters. When her husband died unexpectantly in
2001, Applicant’s daughters were between the ages of 21 and 11. She supported and
raised her younger daughters while learning a new skill, medical transcription, in an
effort to support her and her children. Her job opportunities in State B were limited. She
moved to State C and obtained a “good” job only to have the economic downturn cause
her to lose that job and her ability to find other full-time, permanent work for several
years was unsuccessful. She again returned to school to acquire a skill which would
enable her to find permanent work. Applicant’s health became an issue during this time
of stress creating medical expenses she could not pay. Applicant now has steady
employment, health insurance, and the ability to pay her necessary living expenses.
She used bankruptcy to resolve her debts as she lacks the financial resources to
otherwise resolve her debts. She reaffirmed one debt, which is included in her budget.
Her finances are tight, but she can pay her necessary living expenses. The issue is not
simply whether all her debts are paid: it is whether her financial circumstances raise
concerns about her fitness to hold a public trust position. After throughly evaluating all
the evidence of record and Applicant’s demeanor and testimony, I find that Applicant
can be trusted to protect sensitive information.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness determination. For all these
reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising from her
finances under Guideline F.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.p: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge