1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ADP Case No. 14-00892
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 30, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On April 20, 2015, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive
5220.6, the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the trustworthiness
concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. (Item 1.) The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
 
On May 13, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.)
On June 18, 2015, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits. (Items 1-8.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on August 8, 2015. Applicant filed a
timely response, and the documents submitted have been entered into evidence without
2
objection as Item A.  The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on August 20,
2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to a
sensitive position is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the FORM, and Item A, and upon due consideration of that
evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is employed by a defense contractor, and she seeks access to a
sensitive position in connection with her employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 21 allegations (1.a. through 1.u.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically judgements and overdue debts totaling more than $125,000, including debts
for education loans of almost $110,000, under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the SOR
debts will be discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment in the amount of $863.
Applicant denied this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this credit card
debt has been satisfied through garnishment. (Item 2.) Attachments to her RSOR show
that this judgment debt of $2,250 has been satisfied through garnishment.  
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment in the amount of
$1,086. Applicant denied this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this
credit card debt has been satisfied through garnishment. (Item 2.) Attachments to her
RSOR show that this debt has been satisfied through garnishment.  
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,678. Applicant
denied this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this is a duplicate of the
debt listed as 1. a., above. (Item 2.) I find that this debt to the same creditor as to 1.a.,
above, is the same debt, and it has been satisfied through garnishment. 
 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $332. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had disputed the
amount owed for his debt, but the creditor has not accepted her dispute. She is
scheduled to start making monthly payments of $50 beginning in June 2015 to pay off
this debt.  (Item 2.) 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $456. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt.
She is scheduled to start making monthly payments of $50 beginning in June 2015 to
pay off this debt.  (Item 2.) 
3
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $205. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts.  (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $56. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not sure of the
origination of this debt. She conceded that she may owe this debt, or she may dispute it,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts.  (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $453. Applicant
denied this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this is a duplicate of the
debt listed as 1. b., above. (Item 2.) I find that this debt to the same creditor as to 1.b.,
above, is the same debt, and it has been satisfied through garnishment.
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,528. Applicant
denied this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this credit card debt has
been satisfied through garnishment. (Item 2.) Attachments to her RSOR show that this
debt of $1,491.59 has been satisfied through garnishment.  
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $637. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $789. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $566. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $512. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
 
1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $357. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
4
1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $295. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.p. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,605. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.q. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $222. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not disputing this debt,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.r. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,583. Applicant
admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote she is not sure of the
origination of this debt. She conceded that she may owe this debt, or she may dispute it,
but she cannot begin making payments on this debt until she has paid off some of her
other debts.  (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.s., t., and u. These three overdue debts are cited in the SOR in the amounts of
$7,717; $52,268; and $50,222.  Applicant admitted these SOR allegations in her RSOR,
and she wrote she is not disputing these three debts that were incurred for living
expenses while she was pursing her degree. Unfortunately, she maxed out her funding
before she completed the courses required to earn a Bachelor’s degree in either of the
two fields in which she has received Associate’s degrees, Criminal Justice or Paralegal
Studies. These three debts are with the same collection agency, and Applicant indicated
that she has established a payment plan to resolve these three debts, although she did
not furnish the specifics in her RSOR as to what the arrangements are or how much she
has paid. (Item 2.)
Applicant wrote further in her RSOR that her husband was diagnosed with
Degenerative Disk Disease/Herniated Disk in his back; Traumatic Brain Injury, the
severity is in the process of being determined; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; and
Severe Anxiety. As a result of these illnesses, he has required continuing medical
treatment, and he has been unable to work. Also, Applicant’s son has been diagnosed
with Sensory Processing Disorder, which also requires continuing medical treatment.
(Item 2.) Applicant’s also indicated that in the last year her wages have been garnished
in the amount of $5,337.29, and during that period her family was almost evicted from
their apartment, they almost had their utilities shut off on more than one occasion, and
they had to seek aid from their church to help with rent and utilities. She also averred
that she is attempting to resolve her debts, and she has made some payment
arrangements, but it is extremely difficult. (Exhibit 2.) 
In Applicant’s post-FORM submissions, (Item A), she indicated that she is
working with collection agencies to try to resolve some of her delinquent debts.
5
Applicant conceded that some of these debt are extremely old, and since she has
moved several times since they were incurred and she does not have the original
documentation, she plans to dispute them, although she did not argue that she had not
incurred them. She also wrote, “I have severely over-extended myself as of late, to try
and pay these [her past and present bills, including medical bills] off . . .” She also wrote
that she has met with a few lawyers to explore filing for bankruptcy, but since her largest
debts for Federal and private student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy she did
not believe it would be beneficial to file for bankruptcy. Applicant also indicated that she
had started making payments of approximately $450 a month to pay off her student
loans, but after two payment she stopped because she could not afford to continue
making payments on her income and with her bills. She wrote if she had continued to
make monthly payments at that amount, her family would have been homeless.
Finally, Applicant wrote, “I realize that I have made some very poor financial
decisions. I take full responsibility for that, and I am trying to rectify those situations. I
have taken on 2 part time jobs doing direct sales and I am working OT [sic] when
available, to try and make more money, to pay more things.” (Item A.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for access to a sensitive position, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to access to a sensitive position.
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.
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 access
to [a sensitive position] 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
6
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable access
decision. 
A person who seeks access to a sensitive position 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 that 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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security 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 classified 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 security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt, most of which has been overdue
for several years. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating where, “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.”
Applicant’s husband’s unemployment, and her husband and son’s medical treatment,
could potentially make this condition applicable in this case. However, since there is
7
evidence that these debts were incurred over several years, and the only debts that
have been resolved have been involuntarily through judgments and garnishments,  I do
not find that Applicant has acted responsibly. Therefore, this mitigating condition is not
applicable in this case. 
Additionally, I do not find that AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has not
“initiated a good-faith effort to repay [the majority of] overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.” Finally, because Applicant has not significantly reduced or resolved her
overdue debts, and because the evidence has not established that her current financial
situation is stable, I do not find any other mitigating condition applies to this case.
Therefore, I find Guideline F against Applicant.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a sensitive position by considering the totality of
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) 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 eligibility for
access to a sensitive position 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. Based on the lack of evidence to
establish that Applicant has significantly resolved or reduced the past-due debts listed
on the SOR, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and
doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a sensitive position, under the
whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
trustworthiness concerns under the whole-person concept.
8
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.c.: For  Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d. - 1.g.: Against  Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.h. - 1.i.: For  Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.j. - 1.u.: Against  Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to a
sensitive position.  Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge