1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 14-05373 
  ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne M. Strzelczyk, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for a public 
trust position is granted. Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate financial 
trustworthiness concerns. 
  
On April 15, 2013, Applicant submitted Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to continue eligibility for a public trust position with a 
defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement 
of Reasons (SOR), dated February 25, 2015, detailing trustworthiness concerns for 
financial considerations under Guideline F. This action was taken under DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel 
Security Program, dated Jan. 1987, as amended (Regulation); and the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG).  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 16, 2015. She admitted two 
allegations (SOR 1.a and 1.d), and denied three allegations (SOR 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e) 
under Guideline F. Department counsel was prepared to proceed on May 27, 2015, and 
the case was assigned to me on June 8, 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and 
2 
 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on July 2, 2015, scheduling the hearing for 
July 29, 2015. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted 
five exhibits which I marked and admitted into the record without objection as 
Government Exhibits (GX) 1 to 5. Applicant testified and submitted 12 exhibits which I 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A 
through L. I left the record open for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant 
timely submitted four additional documents I marked and admitted into the record 
without objection as AX M, N, O, and P. (GX 6, e-Mail dated August 19, 2015; GX 7, e-
mail, dated October 7, 2015). I received a copy of the transcript of hearing on August 6, 
2015. The record closed on October 7, 2015, on receipt of Applicant’s last document.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 52-year-old high school graduate who has been a sales account 
executive for a contractor for a DOD agency since December 15, 1997. She first 
married in January 1990 and divorced in February 1998. She again married in July 
2001, separated in April 2012, and divorced June 2013. She has two grown children 
from her first marriage. Applicant’s net monthly income is approximately $3,100, and her 
recurring monthly expenses are approximately $2,400, leaving about $700 monthly in 
discretionary funds. (Tr. 30-52, 51-58; GX 1, e-QIP, dated April 14, 2013)  
 
 The SOR alleges, and credit reports (GX 4, dated May 24, 2013; GX 5, dated 
September 23, 2014) confirm the following financial issues or delinquent debts for 
Applicant: a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in July 2012, and dismissed for failure to make 
the planned payments in July 2013 (SOR 1.a); a mortgage debt for $58,963 (SOR 1.b); 
a credit-card debt charged off for $1,556 (SOR 1.c); a medical debt in collection for $98 
(SOR 1.c); and a credit-card account charged off for $14,326 (SR 1.e). The total amount 
of delinquent debt is approximately $75,000.  
 
 Applicant had some financial problems in her first marriage, so she and her then 
husband filed and completed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1998. This bankruptcy is not 
listed as a security concern. When Applicant married for the second time in 2012, she 
and her new husband and their families purchased a larger home to accommodate their 
larger family. They used both her and her husband’s income to make mortgage 
payments for the house. However, the mortgage was in Applicant’s name because her 
second husband’s credit was not sufficient enough for him to qualify for a mortgage. Her 
husband was an insurance salesman and is paid on commission. After they married, his 
income drastically declined during the economic downturn in 2007. Applicant had 
retained and rented her former residence. She took out a second mortgage on this 
house to use as a down payment on the larger house. The second mortgage is listed in 
SOR 1.b. With her husband’s lower income, they were unable to keep up with their 
debts on her salary alone. They started to incur delinquent debt and could not continue 
to meet the required mortgage payments on their new house, and the second mortgage 
on her original house.  
3 
 
 Applicant and her husband contemplated a short sale of the new house, and 
were told that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy would facilitate the short sale. They filed a 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy and started making the required bankruptcy payments. As they 
were accomplishing the short sale, Applicant, after discussions with her lawyer and 
realtor, stopped making the required Chapter 13 payments and was about four months 
behind in payments. The marriage deteriorated and Applicant and her husband 
separated in 2012. They were able to accomplish the short sale on the new house, and 
Applicant moved back to her premarital home. She asked that the Chapter 13 
bankruptcy be dismissed, because she was able to make the mortgage payments on 
her premarital home on her salary alone. The bankruptcy trustee had already requested 
that the bankruptcy be dismissed because Applicant was a few months behind with the 
bankruptcy payments. The bankruptcy documents show that the bankruptcy was 
dismissed, not terminated, at the request of the Applicant. (Tr. 14-17, 19-22, 35-38, 46-
51; AX B, Mortgage Statement, dated July 1, 2015) 
 
 The mortgage on Applicant’s premarital home is $1.033.43, and she is current 
with that mortgage. She is current now with all of her other bills and obligations not 
included in the SOR. Applicant made payment arrangements with the mortgage holder 
on the second mortgage for her original house in January 2014. She made an initial 
payment of $2,000, and has been making $200 monthly payments since late 2014. The 
payments are automatically taken from her account, and she is current with her 
payments. (Tr. 38-42; AX M, FAX, dated August 19, 2015; AX O, Receipts various 
dates) 
 
 Applicant was current with payment of the credit card debt at SOR 1.c in 2012. 
However, when the Chapter 13 bankruptcy was filed in 2012, the credit-card debt was 
included in the wage earner’s plan. When the plan was dismissed in 2013, she had to 
make different arrangements with the creditor. Applicant settled the debt with the credit 
card company for a amount lessen actually owed. The payment arrangement is for 
automatic payments from her account of $21.32 until the settled debt is completed in 
February 2016. However, Appellant paid the debt in full on October 7, 2015. The debt 
has been resolved. (Tr.18-19, 26-29, 43-45, 60-61; AX A, letter, dated April 15, 2015; 
AX L, Letter, dated June 30, 2015; AX M, FAX, dated August 19, 2015; AX N, Receipts, 
various dates; AX P, e-mail, dated October 7, 2015.) 
 
 Applicant inquired about the medical debt at SOR 1.d and was unable to learn 
information that she could use to identify the debt and the creditor to pay. She is unable 
to resolve this debt but will continue her efforts to learn information on the debt and 
creditor. (Tr. 19-20, 45) 
 
 Applicant contacted the creditor for the credit-card debt at SOR 1.e. She was 
unable to agree to a payment plan because the creditor wanted her to pay a large lump 
sum payment that she could not afford. She stated at the hearing that she intends to 
hire a credit counseling firm to assist her in resolving this debt. After the hearing, she 
contacted the original creditor to determine if she could reach a payment agreement. 
She learned that the original creditor had charged off the debt and sold it to a collection 
agency, who in turn sold the debt to another collection agency. She contacted the last 
4 
 
collection agency, was unable to talk to an agent, and only received an automated 
response. She will continue to try to resolve this debt. (Tr. 19-20, 45-47; AX M. Fax, 
dated August 19, 2015) 
 
 Applicant’s second husband testified that when he and his former wife purchased 
their larger house in 2007, his salary was higher than hers, but he had a tax lien on his 
record and could not qualify for a mortgage. His employer, a large national insurance 
company that he had worked with for 27 years, pulled back on the automobile and 
home insurance policies their agents could write in 2008 and 2009 during the economic 
downturn, and he lost over $40,000 in yearly income. He even had to change the 
location of his business to save on the rent. Even though he lost income, he continued 
to try to assist with the mortgage payments. Applicant had kept and rented her former 
house but there were some delinquent payments from the renters. When they 
separated in April 2012, he was no longer assisting her with the mortgage payments, 
and Applicant was making the entire mortgage payments. (Tr. 65-80) 
 
 AppIicant presented nine letters of recommendation from her supervisors, co-
workers, clients, her pastor, and friends. Most of the individuals providing 
recommendations have known her for 12 to 25 years. They all commented on her 
knowledge of her job, honesty, loyalty, and trustworthiness. She has shown compassion 
for others and treated all with dignity. They noted she has great moral character and is a 
true professional. She is pleasant, service-oriented, knowledgeable, and responsive. 
They all stated that she is suitable for a position of public trust. (AX C to K, Letters, 
various dates).  
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  
(See 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, 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 the interests of national security.” (See 
Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) 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. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)   
 
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 common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” 
5 
 
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the 
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
[sensitive] information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 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 as to obtaining a favorable 
trustworthiness decision.  
 
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 
 
There is a trustworthiness concern for a failure or inability to live within one=s 
means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations indicating 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 (AG ¶ 18). Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligation to 
protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life 
provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
 
 A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
6 
 
debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations.  
 
 Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant’s delinquent mortgage and credit 
card debts as established by credit reports and Applicant’s admissions, are a 
trustworthiness concern raising Financial Consideration Disqualifying Conditions AG 
¶19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations). Applicant has significant delinquent debts that she has 
not resolved.   
 
 I considered the following Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under 
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;  
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or 
separations) 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 has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 SOR allegation 1.a alleges a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in 2012 and dismissed 
in 2013 because of failure to make payments on the wage earner’s plan. Bankruptcy is 
a legal and permissible means of resolving delinquent debts. Applicant admits filing the 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy as part of her efforts to accomplish a short sale of her house. 
She stopped making bankruptcy payments on the advice of her attorney a few months 
before the short sale was completed. The bankruptcy trustee was correct in asking that 
the bankruptcy be dismissed for failure to make the required payments. But Applicant 
adequately explained why she stopped making payments on the advice of her attorney. 
I find that the filing of the bankruptcy and the failure to maintain the payments is not a 
trustworthiness concern and SOR 1.a is resolved in favor of Applicant.  
 
 The mitigating conditions apply to the remaining allegations. Applicant and her 
second husband had sufficient income to purchase a larger house for their growing 
family. While her husband contributed to the mortgage payments and other bills, the 
mortgage was in Applicant’s name because he could not qualify for the mortgage. 
7 
 
Applicant kept her former house and rented it. When the economic downturn came in 
approximately 2009, Applicant’s husband lost significant income and could no longer 
assist Applicant with payment of the mortgages and other debts. The circumstances 
leading to the delinquent debts were largely beyond Applicant’s control because they 
were caused by the economic downturn’s impact on her then husband’s inability to 
financially assist her. Applicant and her husband divorced, and Applicant acted 
reasonably and responsibly by selling the house at a short sale and moving back to her 
original house with a mortgage she could afford. The conditions leading to the financial 
difficulties are unlikely to recur because Applicant is no longer married, she is in control 
of her finances, and she has the ability to maintain sufficient income to meet her 
financial responsibilities. Her efforts to resolve her financial issues show reliability, 
trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 Applicant presented no information to indicate she received financial counseling. 
However, there are sufficient indications that her financial problems are being resolved 
and are under control. She is making payments on her delinquent debts and does have 
a plan to continue to resolve her delinquent debts.  
 
 Applicant established her good-faith efforts to pay her debts. For a good-faith 
effort, there must be an ability to repay the debts, the desire to repay, and evidence of a 
good-faith effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of 
handling debts is needed. Applicant must establish a meaningful track record of debt 
payment. A meaningful track record of debt payment can be established by evidence of 
actual debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. A promise to pay 
delinquent debts is not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner 
and acting in a financially responsible manner. Applicant must establish that she has a 
reasonable plan to resolve financial problems and has taken significant action to 
implement that plan.  
 
 Applicant has established a meaningful track record of debt payment. She is 
current with the primary mortgage on her house which is not listed as a debt on the 
SOR. She is current with the second mortgage on the house which is listed as SOR 1.b.  
She paid the credit card debt at SOR 1.c. She made adequate attempts to learn the 
creditor for the debt at SOR 1.d, but was unsuccessful. She tried to settle the debt at 
SOR 1.e with the primary creditor, who wanted only one big lump sum payment that she 
could not afford. She tried to contact the collection agency now holding the debt but did 
not receive a reply. Applicant has shown that she acted with reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and an adherence to duty and obligation towards his finances. She has 
established that she is managing her personal financial obligations reasonably and 
responsibly, and her financial problems are behind her. There is ample evidence of 
responsible behavior, good judgment, and reliability. Based on all of the financial 
information, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated security concerns based on 
financial considerations. 
 
 
 
8 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s trustworthiness eligibility 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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a trustworthiness 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s over 18 
years of service to the DOD contractor in support of service members’ health needs. 
She is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that she paid off each and every 
debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that she has a plan to resolve her financial 
problems and takes significant action to implement that plan. The entirety of her 
financial situation and her actions can reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent 
to which her plan to reduce her outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. 
Available, reliable information about the person's behavior, past and present, favorable 
and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.  
 
 Applicant is current with her mortgage payments, has paid a credit card debt, and 
has made adequate attempts to resolve two other debts. This information shows 
Applicant’s responsible management of her finances. Applicant presented sufficient 
information to establish that she acted reasonably and responsibly towards her 
finances, and that she will continue to responsibly manage her financial obligations. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s 
judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and eligibility and suitability for a trustworthiness 
clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated trustworthiness 
concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline. Eligibility for a 
trustworthiness position is granted. 
 
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: 
 
9 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e  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 a public trust 
position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge