DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ADP Case No. 15-02160
)
)
Applicant for Public Trust Positions )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 3, 2017
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 18, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security 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; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992) (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
 
On October 23, 2015, Applicant furnished a reply to the SOR (RSOR) in writing,
and she requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.
(Item 3.) On December 9, 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 seven documentary exhibits.
(Items 1-7.) Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on February 12, 2016.
Applicant did not submit any additional evidence. The case was assigned to this
1
Administrative Judge on August 22, 2016. 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 the exhibits, and upon due consideration of that
evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 36 years old. She is married and she has two children. Applicant is
employed as a Claims Customer Service Representative since August 2011 in the health
care industry, and she seeks access to sensitive information in connection with her
current employment. (Item 4.)
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists nine allegations (1.a. through 1.i.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts totaling approximately $32,000. The allegations 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 collection account in the amount
of $5,258. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had
made arrangements to pay $50 a month toward this debt beginning November 2015. 
(Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this debt has been
resolved or reduced. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $3,029. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had
made arrangements to pay $50 a month toward this debt beginning November 2015. 
(Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this debt has been
resolved or reduced. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $2,579. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had
made arrangements to make one payment of $50 and then pay off the rest of the debt
before November 27, 2015. (Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to
establish that this debt has  been resolved or reduced. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $628. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had
made arrangements to make one payment of $50 and then pay off the rest of the debt
before November 27, 2015. (Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to
establish that this debt has  been resolved or reduced. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $2,273. Applicant wrote in her RSOR that this is the same debt as the debt listed as
1.c., above. (Item 3.) This debt is established by the credit reports included with the
2
FORM. (Items 5 and 6.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this
debt is a duplicate or that it has been resolved or reduced. 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $2,879. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she had
not been successful in contacting the creditor of this debt, but she will continue trying.
(Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this debt has been
resolved or reduced. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $7,512. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that she
planned to make payment arrangements in the future with this creditor after she had paid
off one of her other debts. (Item 3.) No independent evidence has been offered to
establish that this debt has  been resolved or reduced. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $627. Applicant wrote in her RSOR that this is the same debt as the debt listed as
1.d., above. (Item 3.) This debt is established by the credit reports included with the
FORM. (Items 5 and 6.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this
debt is a duplicate, or that it has been resolved or reduced. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount of
$3,608. Applicant wrote in her RSOR that this is the same debt as the debt listed as 1.f.,
above. (Item 3.) This debt is established by the credit reports included with the FORM.
(Items 5 and 6.) No independent evidence has been offered to establish that this debt is
a duplicate and has been resolved or reduced. 
Applicant explained on her RSOR that she became unemployed in October 2010,
and while she did stay current on her mortgage, car payments, and insurance, she was
unable to make her credit card payments. Applicant wrote that she was unemployed for
three months before she was able to obtain her current employment. She also indicated
that she is not making as much as she had with her previous employer, which has made
it difficult to resolve her credit card debts. Finally, she wrote that she “is trying to make
good and [sic] my past credit obligations and will continue to do so as well with any new
ones.” (Item 3.)
After the FORM was forwarded to Applicant, she was given the opportunity to
submit evidence showing that she had been making payment on some of her debts, as
she has indicated on her RSOR. Applicant did not submit any documents to show that
she was making payments according to her plan. Applicant also failed to submit a
personal financial statement or any other documents to show that her current financial
position is stable and that she is able to resolve her present debts. 
 
3
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for access to a sensitive position, a
security clearance 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 [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
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).  
4
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The 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 [or 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 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 over several years, which has not been satisfied. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate concerns from financial
difficulties. Since no independent evidence has been submitted to show Applicant has
resolved or reduced any of her significant delinquent debt, I cannot find that she has
acted responsibly, and thus I cannot find that any mitigating condition is a factor for
consideration in this case.
Until Applicant is able to significantly resolve or reduce her overdue debts, I find
that Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Consideration concerns, which are found
against Applicant. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a sensitive 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) 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
Under AG ¶ 2 (c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security 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. Based on all of the reasons cited above
as to why the disqualifying conditions are applicable and controlling, and no mitigating
conditions are applicable, 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 concerns under the whole-person concept. 
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. - 1i.: 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
6