1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Redacted] )  ADP Case No. 16-00160 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Chrystina M. O’Brien, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for a public trust position is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) on February 22, 2015. On June 8, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent 
her a Statement of Reasons (SOR), citing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. 
DOD acted under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); DOD 
Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (January 1987), as amended 
(Regulation); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on September 
1, 2006. The guidelines are codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006), and they 
replace the guidelines in Appendix 8 of the Regulation. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on July 11, 2016, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. On October 20, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On 
October 21, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent her a 
notice of hearing, scheduling the hearing for November 16, 2016. I convened the 
hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 3 were admitted in evidence 
2 
 
without objection. Applicant testified, presented the testimony of one witness, and 
submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A through H, which were admitted without objection. 
I kept the record open until December 16, 2016, to enable her to submit additional 
documentary evidence. She timely submitted AX I through J, which were admitted 
without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 29, 2016. 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.g, 1.h, and 1.j-1.l. She denied 
the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c-1.f, 1.i, and 1.m. She neither admitted nor denied the 
allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.n and 1.o, and I have treated her responses to these 
allegations as denials. Her admissions in her answer to the SOR and at the hearing 
have been incorporated in my findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 55-year-old administrative assistant employed by a federal 
contractor since March 1999. She was cleared for a public trust position in July 2006. 
 
 Applicant married in February 1991. She and her husband have two adult 
children and two adopted children, ages 14, and 13, whose biological mother is 
Applicant’s niece. They adopted the children because Applicant’s niece was a drug 
addict and unable to care for them. (Tr. 17.) 
 
 When Applicant submitted her e-QIP, she disclosed numerous delinquent debts. 
(GX 1 at 29-38.) She contacted a credit counseling service (CCS) in November 2015, 
who helped her make a repayment plan for her debts. She makes monthly payments of 
$364 to the CCS. The CCS plan includes the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.d-1.h, and 
1.m. (AX F; AX G.) If she adheres to the CCS plan, she will pay off all delinquent debts 
by September 2018. (AX D.) She considered bankruptcy, but chose to work through the 
CCS because she felt she had an obligation to pay her debts. (Tr. 53.) 
 
Applicant’s credit bureau reports (CBRs) from February 2015 and January 2016 
reflected the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. The evidence concerning these debts 
is summarized below. 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.a: credit-card account, referred for collection of $5,363 in 
December 2012. In November 2015, Applicant began paying $167 per month through 
the CCS plan. The current balance is $4,194. (Tr. 75-76; AX C; AX H.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.b: credit-card account, referred for collection of $2,392 in 
November 2011. In November 2016, Applicant agreed to pay $65 every two weeks by 
direct transfer from her bank account. She made the first payment on December 9, 
2016. (Tr. 77-78; AX K.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.c: cellphone account placed for collection of $709 in June 2010. 
Applicant settled this account in November 2016 for $450. (Tr. 80; AX E.) 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her e-QIP (GX 1) unless otherwise indicated by a 
parenthetical citation to the record.  
3 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.d: collection account for $462, opened in January 2011. Applicant is 
paying this debt at $27 per month through the CCS plan. (Tr. 80; AX H.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.e: collection account for $442, opened in June 2011. Applicant is 
paying this debt at $15 per month through the CCS plan. (Tr. 80-81; AX H.)  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.f: collection account for $371, opened in October 2014. Applicant 
was paying this debt at $25 per month through the CCS plan. (AX H.) She testified that 
it has been paid in full. (Tr. 81.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.g: judgment filed in March 2012 for $533. Applicant is paying this 
debt through the CCS plan to the same collection agency as the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 
1.e, and 1.m. (Tr. 59, 82; AX H.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.h: judgment filed in July 2012 for $1,852. Applicant is paying this 
debt through the CCS plan to the same collection agency as the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 
1.d, and 1.f. (Tr. 83; AX H.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.i: judgment filed in May 2010 for $4,000. This debt arose when 
Applicant’s parents passed away, and Applicant and her five siblings inherited their 
house. Her four brothers, one of whom is disabled, lived in the house, but they did not 
pay rent or contribute to the upkeep of the house. Applicant’s great-aunt gave her 
$4,000 to purchase a heating system for the house. Applicant considered the money a 
gift, but her great-aunt demanded that Applicant repay the $4,000 and obtained a 
judgment against her. (Tr. 41-45.) Applicant paid this judgment in full in October 2010. 
(Tr. 41-44; AX A.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.j: judgment filed in September 2015 for $798. Applicant paid this debt 
in October 2016. (AX J.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.k: judgment filed in September 2012 for $2,392. The judgment was 
satisfied in July 2016. (AX A; AX B.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.l: satellite TV service, placed for collection of $244 in January 
2015. Applicant settled this debt for $184 in July 2016. (AX I.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.m: collection account for $652: Applicant is paying this debt through 
the CCS plan to the same collection agency as the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.e, and1.g. 
(Tr. 86; AX H.) 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.n and 1.o: credit-card accounts, one placed for collection of 
$9,421 in May 2009, and the other placed for collection of $347 in November 2009.  
Applicant testified that she incurred these debts at a home improvement store to repair 
the home she and her siblings inherited from their parents. The home was heavily 
damaged by fire in 2006. It was condemned and about to be demolished, but Applicant 
spent about $60,000 to repair it. The insurance company paid less than $15,000 to 
cover the cost of repairs. Applicant testified that she assumed responsibility to repair the 
4 
 
home because she is the oldest child, her brothers lived there, and she wanted to keep 
the home in the family. (Tr. 46.) The debts and identity of the original creditor are 
reflected in the February 2015 CBR. The CBR reflects that the debts were purchased by 
another lender, but it does not identify the lender. (GX 3 at 11.) The debts are not 
reflected in the January 2016 CBR. (GX 2.) She testified that CCS did not include these 
debts in her plan because CCS could not determine who owned the debts. She has not 
been contacted by any debt collectors about the debts. (Tr. 45-50.) She testified that 
CCS told her that the debts would no longer be reflected in her CBRs because they are 
too old.2 (Tr. 50.) 
 
 Applicant’s daughter-in-law and three children moved in with them around 2013 
and stayed for about nine months. Applicant and her husband financially supported 
them while they were living together. (Tr. 32-36.) One of the children is seriously 
disabled, requires frequent hospital visits, and 24-hour care. Applicant took a 27-day 
leave of absence without pay in August 2014 to be with her. (Tr. 88.)  
 
 Applicant’s annual pay is about $43,000. She and her husband have virtually no 
savings, but she has about $20,000 in her retirement account. (Tr. 89-90.) Applicant’s 
husband was unemployed from February 2013 to February 2014. His current pay varies 
between $30,000 and $50,000, depending on overtime. (Tr. 30.) He has a retirement 
account, but he did not know its balance when he testified. (Tr. 33.) 
 
 Applicant testified that she now realizes that she took on more responsibilities 
than she could handle. She intends to take her name off the house she and her siblings 
inherited from their parents. She realizes that she was “thinking with [her] heart, and not 
[her] head,” and she needs to let go of her sense of responsibility to her siblings and in-
laws. (Tr. 65, 90.) 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I and ADP II are classified as “sensitive positions.” 
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 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.” Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1. DOD contractor personnel are 
entitled to the procedural protections in the Directive before any final unfavorable 
access determination may be made. Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.  
 
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. 
                                                          
2 Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a credit report may not list accounts placed for collection or 
charged off that antedate the credit report by more than seven years, or until the statute of limitations has 
run, whichever is longer. The exceptions to this prohibition do not apply to these debts. 10 U.S.C. § 
1681c.  
 
5 
 
Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may 
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard sensitive information.  
 
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 an evaluation of the 
whole person. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, 
impartial and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all 
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and 
unfavorable.  
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Under AG 
¶ 2(b), “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to [sensitive] 
information will be resolved in favor of national security.” The Government must present 
substantial evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ 
E3.1.14. Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant has the ultimate burden of 
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant or continue 
eligibility for access to sensitive information.  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The concern under this guideline 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 [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially 
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds. 
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise sensitive information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting sensitive 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding sensitive information. See 
ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by her CBRs, establish two disqualifying 
conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”) 
6 
 
and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The following mitigating 
conditions under this guideline are relevant: 
 
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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(e): the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy 
of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are numerous, recent, 
and were not incurred under circumstances making them unlikely to recur. 
 
 AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) are established. Applicant encountered several 
conditions that exacerbated her financial problems: the financial burden of repairing and 
maintaining the home inherited from her parents, housing and financially supporting her 
daughter-in-law and three children, adopting her drug-addicted niece’s children, and 
taking unpaid leave to care for a disabled grandchild. However, she accepted these 
conditions voluntarily, and they were not beyond her control.  
 
However, Applicant also encountered several conditions that were largely 
beyond her control: an interfamily squabble about maintenance of the home she and 
her siblings inherited from their parents, a destructive house fire inadequately protected 
by insurance, and her husband’s unemployment for about a year. When she realized 
that her financial situation was out of control, she acted responsibly by obtaining credit 
counseling, initiating payment plans, and settling several debts. She has made a good-
faith effort to resolve all her debts, but she has been unable to resolve the debts in SOR 
¶¶ 1.n and 1.o because of their age and the absence of information about the current 
owner of the debts. With the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.f, and 1.i-1.l resolved and the debts 
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, and 1.o being resolved under her CCS plan, there 
are “clear indications” that her financial problems are under control. 
 
7 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
public trust position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
public trust position 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.  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person 
analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but 
some warrant additional comment. 
 
 Applicant was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. She is kind, 
compassionate, and generous to a fault, with a history of helping family members to her 
own financial detriment. She finally realizes that she cannot be financially responsible 
for all her siblings and in-laws. She has a financially sound plan to resolve her debts, 
and she has taken significant steps to implement that plan. 
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Accordingly, I 
conclude she has carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with national 
security to continue her eligibility for a public trust position. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.o:    For Applicant 
 
8 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is clearly consistent with national security to continue 
Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility for a public trust position is 
granted. 
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge