DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ADP Case No. 15-03155
)
)
Applicant for Position of Trust )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant:  Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her financial
problems. Her request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is granted.
Statement of the Case
On December 5, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position  for her1
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 December 5, 2015, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts which raise trustworthiness concerns addressed through the adjudicative
 As defined in Chapter 3 and Appendix 10 of DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, as amended (Regulation).1
 Required by the Regulation, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive).2
1
guideline (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to3
the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on June 6,
2015, and I convened a hearing on August 9, 2015. Department Counsel for the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.)
1 - 4.  Applicant testified and presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - F. All exhibits were4
admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 17,
2016.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $25,839 for 23
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.w). In response, Applicant admitted, with
explanations, SOR 1.a - 1.e, and 1.g. She denied, with explanations, the remaining
SOR allegations. In addition to the facts established through Applicant’s admissions, I
make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is 35 years old. She is employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) by
a defense contractor in work that requires she be eligible for a position of trust. Her
employer supports management of the health care system used by members of the
military, and Applicant might be entrusted with personally identifiable information (PII)
associated with the health care system’s constituents. (Gx. 1)
Applicant was married from October 2001 until divorcing in February 2010. She
has three children, ages 14, 9, and 5. Applicant remarried in April 2010. Her current
husband is a lineman for a local utility company. Applicant has worked as an LPN since
2003, and she was hired by her current employer in December 2012. (Gx. 1; Tr. 34 - 35,
37)
When Applicant submitted her EQIP, she disclosed the delinquent debts alleged
at SOR 1.l, 1.m, 1.p, 1.v, and 1.w. Credit reports obtained during the ensuing
background investigation documented all of the debts alleged in the SOR. (Gx. 1 - 4; Tr.
16) 
Applicant attributes her financial problems to a combination of her divorce,
periods of unexpected unemployment (and associated lack of medical insurance
coverage), and medical costs not completely covered by medical insurance. From
August 2011 until February 2012, she was unemployed after she was laid off following
medically-necessary extended maternity leave. More recently, she had to leave work to
care for her husband after he was injured at work. Most of the medical bills alleged in
the SOR are for her own care after pregnancies, back surgeries, and conditions related
to a pending hysterectomy (scheduled for the week following her hearing). Additionally,
her oldest child was diagnosed with a terminal illness (unspecified in the record), and
was not expected to reach the age he has. Medication costs for that child have
sometimes exceeded Applicant’s ability to pay. A week before this hearing, Applicant’s
medical insurance was cancelled with no advance warning. (Answer; Gx. 1; Tr. 31 - 33,
36)
 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). 
 Department Counsel also provided a list identifying Gx. 1 - 4. It is included as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1.4
2
Applicant has been making contact with her creditors, albeit with mixed success,
to resolve her debts. In response to the SOR and in the information she provided at
hearing, Applicant established that she has paid, or is making payments on, the debts
listed at SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.k, 1.m, 1.q, and 1.r. A credit report she provided does not list
the debts at SOR 1.l, and 1.s - 1.w. Applicant also disputes the debt at SOR 1.h - 1.j,
claiming that the creditors for those medical bills told her the accounts are ten years
older than she is. This suggests the possibility of identification theft or confusion with
another account. The medical debt at SOR 1.c remains unresolved because Applicant
cannot afford the terms of settlement offered by the creditor when she contacted them.
Except for the debt at SOR 1.l, Applicant has been unable to obtain information about
the remaining debts. (Answer; Ax. A - F; Tr. 19 - 26, 40 - 41)
The $15,275 debt at SOR 1.l is for the remainder after resale of a car that was
purchased with her first husband. Credit reports show this was a debt for which they
both were liable. Applicant received the car after her divorce but did not receive spousal
support for six months thereafter and voluntarily relinquished the car to the dealer, who
was the lien holder. The dealer resold the car and demanded payment of the unsatisfied
balance from Applicant. The dealer indicated a willingness to accept payment in two
equal installments, but Applicant never has been unable to make such payments. The
debt does not appear on any credit reports after 2012, and there is no information
showing whether Applicant’s ex-husband was approached by the creditor to resolve this
debt.  (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 40, 44 - 47)
Applicant’s current finances have improved since she remarried. Medical issues
for her and her children persist, but they are able to meet their current expenses. They
have little money left over each month after expenses, but are managing their finances
responsibly. At one point, Applicant and her husband considered Chapter 13 bankruptcy
but were advised it would wiser for them to pay off their debts without such assistance.
(Gx. 3; Gx. 4; Ax. F; Tr. 31, 34, 38, 47 - 48)
Policies
Positions designated as ADP I and II are classified as “sensitive positions.”  In5
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 also6
requires that DOD contractor personnel are entitled to the procedural protections in the
Directive before any adverse determination may be made.7
Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense determination based
on examination of all available relevant and material information,  and consideration of8
the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions
must also reflect consideration of the factors, commonly referred to as the “whole-
 Regulation, ¶ C3.6.15. 5
 Regulation, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 6
 Regulation, ¶ C8.2.1. 7
 Directive, 6.3.8
3
person” concept, listed in the guidelines at AG ¶ 2(a).  The presence or absence of a9
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 was sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations. The
facts thus established reasonably raise a trustworthiness concern about Applicant’s
finances that is addressed, in relevant part, 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 [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds.
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 reflects an
inability to pay, as opposed to an unwillingness to do so.
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
  (1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to9
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.
4
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.
Applicant’s financial problems began when one of her children was diagnosed
with a life-threatening illness and she had insufficient health insurance coverage. They
were compounded when she divorced in 2010, and have been further exacerbated by
unexpected periods of unemployment and loss of medical insurance. Applicant has
acted responsibly in contacting and negotiating with her medical creditors. The debt at
SOR 1.l constitutes about 60 percent of the total debt at issue. It also was a shared
obligation with her ex-husband and is not being actively collected. Otherwise, Applicant
is resolving her debts to the best of her ability, and there is no indication she has been
irresponsible in managing her personal finances. Despite the ongoing presence of
unpaid debts, Applicants efforts in trying to resolve her financial problems reflect
positively on her judgment and reliability. Further, her current finances are stable and
she is managing her monthly finances in a prudent manner. All of the foregoing
supports application of the named mitigating conditions. In summary, I find that
available information is sufficient to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns about
Applicant’s financial problems.
 
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). Applicant is a mature and responsible mother
of three who has dealt with her personal and financial problems as well as can be
expected given her circumstances. Although she is not debt-free, her debts are not the
result of misconduct or irresponsible financial management. She has demonstrated the
requisite judgment and reliability required for safeguarding sensitive information. A fair
and commonsense assessment of all available information shows she is suitable for
eligibility for a position of trust.
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.w: 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
5