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. 14-04772
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Gina Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant:  Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued significant delinquent debt as a result of an abusive marriage
that ended by divorce in 2007. Legal fees, periods of unemployment in 2008 and 2013,
and unplanned medical bills incurred while she was uninsured initially hindered her
ability to pay or otherwise resolve her debts. However, her current finances are sound,
she has begun to pay off her debts, and available information shows she will continue
her efforts. Her request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is granted.
Statement of the Case
On August 21, 2013, 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). 
 Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7. See also Government Exhibit 6. This document has little evidentiary4
value other than to complete the procedural record in this case. I have taken administrative notice of the
FORM and the arguments contained therein.
 Government Exhibit 7. See also Tr. 25 - 27. Applicant’s response to the FORM contains specific5
documentation of her claims of debt repayment. It also contains relevant whole-person information.
 An email clarifying Applicant’s request for a hearing is included as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. See also Tr. 8 -6
9.
 Department Counsel also provided a copy of the letter forwarding to Applicant advance copies of Gx. 1 - 77
(Hx. 2) and a list identifying Gx. 1 - 7 (Hx. 3).
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 November 4, 2014, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts which raise trustworthiness concerns addressed through the adjudicative
guideline (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to3
the SOR (Answer) and requested a decision without a hearing. On April 6, 2015,
Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM)  in support of the SOR,4
to which Applicant responded on May 22, 2015.  On June 2, 2015, Applicant requested5
a hearing.  Department Counsel agreed to her request and made the case ready for6
hearing on June 19, 2015. The case was assigned to me on July 9, 2015, and I
convened a hearing on August 5, 2015. Department Counsel for the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 7.  Applicant7
testified and presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - D. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on August 14, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $94,035 for 26
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.z). Applicant admitted, with explanations, 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 45 years old and is employed by a defense contractor as an
information systems support analyst. Her duties require eligibility for a position of trust
because her employer supports management of the health care system used by
members of the military. Applicant must be found suitable to be entrusted with
personally identifiable information (PII) associated with the health care system’s
constituents. From February 1990 until June 2008, Applicant held a position of trust as
3
she worked in a similar capacity for a federal agency. In December 2008, Applicant was
hired by her current employer for a systems support position unrelated to DOD
information. She left that job in May 2012 to help manage her husband’s small
business, which was struggling at the time. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 7; Tr. 91)
Applicant and her husband have been married since June 2008. Applicant was
previously married from October 1991 until separating in 2005 and divorcing in July
2007. She and her ex-husband had two children, now ages 21 and 15. Applicant’s ex-
husband was ordered to pay child support as part of the divorce; however, Applicant
only received child support from her ex-husband for about six months after they
separated in 2005. Applicant characterized her ex-husband as abusive, irresponsible,
and unfaithful.(Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 7; Ax. C; Tr. 42 - 43, 92)
When Applicant submitted her EQIP, she disclosed several of the debts alleged
in the SOR. All of the debts alleged in the SOR were subsequently documented in credit
reports obtained by the Government. The debts alleged at SOR 1.a - 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.r -
1.w, and 1.y are for joint accounts opened during her first marriage. Applicant claimed
that the debts at SOR 1.r - 1.w were paid in either 2001 or 2003, but she did not present
documentation in support of her claim. Those debts appear on two of the three, but not
the most recent, credit reports provided by the Government. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 5; Gx. 2;
Gx. 7; Tr. 44, 78 - 80)
Applicant’s remaining debts were incurred after she separated from her ex-
husband in 2005. The debts at SOR 1.e, and 1.n - 1.q are for unpaid medical expenses
in 2012. The debts at SOR 1.g, and 1.i - 1.m are for individual accounts Applicant could
not pay after she and her ex-husband separated and she no longer had financial
support from him. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 5; Gx. 7; Tr. 60)
Applicant and her ex-husband lived in State A and worked at the same federal
agency. When they divorced, he quit his job with that agency. Together they accrued
most of the debts alleged in the SOR. They also bought a house in 2002 for about
$190,000. In 2003, they took about $8,000 out of the house. Applicant put the house on
the market in late 2007, but the value had fallen significantly by then. It was not until
November 2009 that the house was sold through a short sale that did not yield any
significant proceeds. As a result of the short sale, her mortgage obligations, including
the debt at SOR 1.a, and other smaller debts, including SOR 1.z, were satisfied. (Gx. 1;
Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Gx. 7; Ax. B; Tr. 48 - 54)
When Applicant remarried in June 2008, she left her federal job in State A to live
with her new husband in State B. She was unemployed until going to work for her
current employer in December 2008. She and her husband were supported by his
income as a small businessman. In May 2012, Applicant’s husband was struggling to
keep his business afloat. He was overwhelmed by doing the work for which he was paid
while at the same time trying to meet his bookkeeping, payroll, and other administrative
obligations. Applicant left her systems support job to help her husband, but she received
no income for her work. While she was helping her husband, she was not covered by
 Regulation, ¶ C3.6.15. 8
 Regulation, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 9
 Regulation, ¶ C8.2.1. 10
4
medical insurance. The debts alleged at SOR 1.e, and 1.n - 1.q arose from an
emergency surgery she required. Applicant has been repaying these debts since shortly
after her subject interview with a Government investigator in September 2013. In
addition to regular $100 monthly payments, her state tax refunds for 2013 and 2014
were diverted to satisfy these accounts.(Answer; Gx. 1 - 5; Gx. 7; Ax. D; Tr. 44 - 46, 61
- 71)
Applicant also is making regular, albeit modest, payments on other debts,
including the debts at SOR 1.u, 1.w, and 1.x. Her plan has been to pay smaller debts
first, and when the money used to pay those debts is again available, to apply those
amounts to other debts as circumstances allow. Most of her efforts to date have been
focused on her medical bills. Applicant has been hindered in her ability to make more
repayment progress by having to support her grandmother, who died in 2013 and by
having to pay college tuition and other expenses for her two children. (Answer; Gx. 1;
Gx. 2; Gx. 7; Ax. C; Ax. D; Tr. 47, 58 - 59, 87 - 90)
After her subject interview, Applicant also contacted a credit counseling resource
and learned more about managing her personal finances. She has used that information
to control her household expenses and avoid further unpaid debt. She has not used a
credit card since her divorce and most of the assets (house, cars, etc.) in her second
marriage are in her husband’s name. Available information shows her income is
sufficient to avoid any new unpaid debts, but she is still unable to pay all of the
remaining debts from her first marriage. (Answer; Gx. 7; Tr. 81 - 90)
Applicant’s performance evaluations from both periods with her current employer
show she is an excellent employee. Letters of recommendation and support, praise
Applicant’s integrity, reliability, work ethic, and expertise. A common thread in others’
observations of Applicant is that she is a reliable team player with a positive attitude.
(Gx. 7; Ax. A)
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I/II/III are classified as “sensitive positions.”  In8
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 also9
requires that DOD contractor personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the
Directive before any adverse determination may be made.10
 Directive. 6.3.11
  “(1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct,12
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.”
5
The Directive requires that each decision be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,11
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies in the adjudicative
guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors, commonly referred
to as the “whole-person” concept, listed in the guidelines at AG ¶ 2(a).12
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.
 The mitigating conditions at AG ¶¶ 20(e) and 20(f) are not pertinent to these facts and circumstances.13
6
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 all of her past-due debts.
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;
 
(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
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.13
All of these mitigating conditions have at least partial application. As to AG ¶
20(a), the “behavior” is ongoing, in that Applicant is responsible in some way for all of
the debts and most of them remain unpaid. However, none of her unpaid debts were the
result of financial mismanagement or some other irresponsible decision making. She
has incurred no new unpaid debt in almost ten years, and the healthy state of her
current finances indicates she is not likely to experience such financial problems in the
future.
AG ¶ 20(b) applies because Applicant’s debts arose from, or were exacerbated
by, her divorce, the subsequent lack of financial support as she raised two children,
unplanned medical expenses, and two periods of unemployment. As to whether
Applicant acted responsibly under the circumstances, the record shows she has
improved how she manages her personal finances, and she embarked on a methodical
approach to resolving her medical and other smaller debts in late 2013. She has not
used personal credit in nearly ten years. This is sufficient to satisfy the second prong of
this mitigating condition.
AG ¶ 20(c) applies based on Applicant’s use of available consumer credit
counseling information. She presented a good command of her monthly finances and is
acting to resolve her debts while still meeting her family’s current financial needs.
7
AG ¶ 20(d) applies based on Applicant’s proactive approach to resolving her
medical debts. Those are the largest of her financial obligations incurred since her first
marriage. Although most of her efforts began around the time she was interviewed in
September 2013, the record also shows she was hindered in her ability to act sooner by
events beyond her control. She is also credited with promptly resolving her mortgage
obligations from her first marriage.
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 and her complete candor about those problems. Also noteworthy is
the fact that Applicant held a position of trust without incident for 18 years. Many of the
debts at issue here resulted from a bad marriage and it is likely her ex-husband was
responsible for at least half of the total debt incurred before 2005. Subsequent debts
remain unresolved due to factors beyond Applicant’s control, but she is trying to resolve
them as quickly as her current circumstances allow. There has been no misconduct
underlying Applicant’s financial problems, and Applicant’s good reputation for
trustworthiness and reliability indicate such problems will not recur. 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.z: For Applicant
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