1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ADP Case No. 15-06850 
) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
Appearances 
 For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esquire 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant submitted sufficient evidence to mitigate Guideline F trustworthiness 
concerns. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy a position of trust is granted. 
    Statement of the Case 
On April 5, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement 
of Reasons (SOR) detailing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 
regarding her eligibility to occupy an automated data processing (ADP) position 
designated ADP-I/II/III. The action was taken under Department of Defense Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the 
DOD on September 1, 2006. Applicant timely responded to the SOR, admitting the 
allegations raised, and requested a hearing before a Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge.  
On December 27, 2016, I was assigned this case. On January 11, 2017, a notice 
of hearing was issued setting a hearing for January 31, 2017. The hearing was convened 
as scheduled. The government offered five exhibits (Exs.), which were accepted into the 
record without objection as Exs. 1-5. Applicant testified, introduced one witness, and 
offered two exhibits, which were accepted into the record without objection as Exs. A-B. 
The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on February 8, 2017. The record was 
held open through March 8, 2017, to provide Applicant additional time to submit any other 
 
 
 
 
2 
materials she deemed relevant. On March 8, 2017, she sent an email to the Government 
that included five documents of information. Those items were accepted into the record 
without objection as Exs. C-G and the record was closed. Based on my review of the file 
and submissions, Applicant mitigated financial considerations trustworthiness concerns.    
 
          Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 33-year-old departmental team leader. She achieved her present job 
level after starting as a temporary employee in April 2013. Applicant has earned an 
associate’s degree in legal office administration. She is a separated mother of two pre-
teen children. Since she began full-time employment, her manager has given her 
outstanding ratings. The same individual, who considers Applicant to be her “right-hand,” 
personally promoted Applicant to her leadership position. The manager sees hiring 
Applicant as one of her best management decisions. (Tr. 15) She does not have anyone 
the caliber of Applicant currently on staff.  
 
 Over the past few years, Applicant has experienced some difficult times. In 2011, 
after a protracted period of feeling under the weather with no clear diagnosis of her 
condition, she was diagnosed with cancer. She immediately underwent surgery. (Tr. 30)  
This led to post-surgical treatments, which included bouts of 24-hour care for her children, 
as she could not be around them due to radioactivity concerns during some of her 
treatments. (Tr. 25) As a consequence, she missed a considerable amount of work. While 
she was taking time off for medical care, her employer laid off her entire department, 
leaving her unemployed from October 2011 through May 2012. During that time, more 
cancer treatments were conducted in early 2012, and continue to date on a periodic basis. 
(Tr. 31) When the early 2012 treatment was completed, she relocated to be closer to her 
parents so they could help her manage her children while she convalesced and looked 
for a new job. (Tr. 31-32)  
 
 At the same time of Applicant’s relocation, she and her husband separated. While 
it did not cause their separation, the couple had made some poor financial choices during 
their time together. In their younger years, they had relied too much on credit. (Tr. 33) 
They remain separated, with Applicant taking primary responsibility for the children. Most 
of the bills now at issue are related to medical care. She was not aware of some of them 
because her estranged husband maintained, and continues to maintain, the family health 
insurance policy. She is not privy to the billing information he receives or has received. 
(Tr. 26) 
 
 At issue in the SOR are 10 delinquent debts, set forth under 10 separate 
allegations. In sum, they represent about $11,000. Most are medical in nature: 
 
1.a-1.d – Collection accounts (medical) - $150, $306, $68, $68. Paid. Applicant could not 
identify these medical debts. (Tr. 34) These collection efforts were created in 2013 or 
2014, possibly indicating they relate to her 2011-2012 cancer treatment and follow-ups. 
She does not know if they were covered by insurance. She does not know whether she 
met a catastrophic limit on the policy during her illness. She knows of no other medical 
 
 
 
 
3 
care rendered during this timeframe. Rather than protract the process, she paid off all 
four accounts in one payment. (Exs. C, E, and F)  
 
1.e – Collection account - $374. Paid. Applicant initially had no knowledge of this alleged 
debt, but followed the information on Government Ex. 2, a 2016 credit report, to discover 
who to pay. It was settled by payment of $281 to the referenced entity. (Exs. C, E, and F)  
 
1.f – Charged-off account - $9,002. Unpaid. Applicant believes this was for a commercial 
credit card shared with her husband. It became delinquent in December 2011, around the 
time of her illness and separation. She believes the account was used for goods and 
services. She recently tried to contact the creditor to address the debt and see if it was 
still owed, or included in her husband’s bankruptcy.  
 
1.g-1.h – Collections accounts (medical) - $403, $321. Investigating; Possibly Deleted 
For Reasons Other Than Age. Applicant had no knowledge of these alleged debts. She 
has researched the information noted on the credit report at Government Ex. 3, an earlier 
credit report from 2015, but to no avail. These collection efforts were initiated in 2012 and 
2014, respectively. Despite inclusion in Applicant’s 2015 credit report (Ex. 2), they are no 
longer reflected in her 2016 credit report (Ex. 3) or her January 29, 2017, credit report 
(Ex. B)   
 
1.i – Collection account - $49. Paid. Although she is not sure what this account was for, 
Applicant found contact information on the Government’s Ex. 2. The balance has 
increased to $135.57. The balance owed was paid. (Exs. C, E, and F)  
 
1.j – Collection account - $354. Paid. This is a collection account for a propane servicer. 
She disputes this balance. It is for tanks of propane left behind by a prior tenant at her 
residence. She was assessed the balance owed on that account when she switched the 
property to another servicer. She explained the situation to the servicer, but was 
unsuccessful. Rather than further dispute the issue, she paid the balance. (Ex. G) 
 
 As discussed below, Applicant regularly pays her rent on time and makes timely 
payments on her car loan. (Tr. 21-23; Ex. A) She is timely on her regular monthly 
expenses. She purposefully obtained a couple of small balance credit cards in order to 
make purchases and timely payments in an effort to improve her credit rating. (Tr. 23) 
She has no new commercial debts, but she wants to pay her mother about $2,000. (Tr. 
48) She is paying off her smaller debts first, then tackling the progressively larger ones.  
 
 Applicant’s husband has filed for bankruptcy, although Applicant does not know 
anything about his petition or what debts he has been seeking to discharge. She does 
not know if any of the debts at issue are included. She believes whatever debts he 
included in his petition may have already been discharged, including a home mortgage. 
It is unknown whether the credit card noted at SOR allegation 1.f was included  
 
 At present, Applicant takes home about $1,200 after taxes and deductions each 
month. Her current expenses appear to exceed her present net income, although she has 
 
 
 
 
4 
received some economic help from her mother. The extent of financial assistance from 
her husband for herself or their children is unclear. Applicant regularly makes timely 
payments on her present obligations. (Tr. 45) In response to the Government’s comment 
that, “at the end of the month you don’t have additional funds that you’re saving away 
each month, but you’re making all your payments?,” Applicant stated: “No, but I’m making 
my payments right.” (Tr. 45) She conceded, however, that she presently has no excess 
funds apart from an anticipated $5,000 tax refund. She is currently enrolled in financial 
counseling. (Ex. D). 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a position of trust, the administrative 
judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. The adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to protected information. 
 
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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under 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 secure information is the paramount consideration.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable decision.”  
 
A person who seeks a public trust position enters into a fiduciary relationship with 
the Government predicated upon trust and confidence that transcends normal duty hours. 
Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may 
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 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.” 
  
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
Under Guideline F, AG ¶ 18 sets forth the applicable trustworthiness concern: 
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, 
 
 
 
 
5 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Here, the Government 
introduced credible evidence showing Applicant has about 10 delinquent debts, 
amounting to about $11,000. Such facts raise the following disqualifying conditions:  
 
AG ¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and  
 
AG ¶ 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.   
 
Five conditions could mitigate these financial concerns:  
 
 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. 
  
Applicant was diagnosed with cancer in 2011, after a protracted period of ill health. 
She immediately underwent surgery and extensive measures related to post-operative 
treatment and aftercare. While she was undergoing this treatment, in about October 2011, 
she was laid off from her job. She continued to be unemployed through May 2012. In the 
interim, she was separated from her husband and relocated to be near her family, who 
could help her care for her children while she recuperated and worked to find new 
employment as quickly as possible. These obstacles all had financial repercussions. 
They, along with her efforts to not let them hamper her moving forward, give rise to AG ¶ 
20(b). 
 
There is no documentary evidence showing Applicant disputes her one remaining 
identified delinquent debt. This is true despite her concern that the account noted at SOR 
allegation 1.f may have been included in her husband’s bankruptcy. Regardless, AG ¶ 
20(e) does not apply.  
 
 
 
 
6 
 
Although Applicant stated money is very tight, she stated that she has been making 
monthly payments on her obligations in a timely manner. There is no evidence of new 
delinquent debt. Her debt issues are contained. She is in the process of receiving needed 
financial counseling. She showed that she has directly satisfied seven of the 10 
delinquent debts at issue, including accounts she could not identify and balances she 
legitimately questioned. She did so in order to expedite this process. She has 
systematically satisfied all of her smaller debts, ranging from $49 to $403, leaving only 
the debts at SOR allegation 1.f-1.h unaddressed.   
 
As for the delinquent debts alleged at 1.g and 1.h, which were originally culled from 
a 2015 credit report for the SOR, they are not reflected in her more recent credit reports. 
These include 2017 report from just days before the hearing. Inasmuch as they are both 
less than seven years old, it is unlikely they were removed for being dated, leaving their 
status weighing in Applicant’s favor. Regardless, at the time of the hearing, she was in 
anticipation of a tax refund of approximately $5,000 which could give her the opportunity 
to make further payments on the debt yet remaining. Under these facts, there is sufficient 
evidence to deduce that Applicant has raised AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d). 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a position of trust by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the final determination 
of whether to grant eligibility for a position of trust must be an overall commonsense 
judgment based on 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 incorporate my comments under the 
guideline at issue in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were 
addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
Applicant is a 33-year-old departmental team leader who has worked for the same 
employer since April 2013. Applicant has an associate’s degree in legal office 
administration. A separated mother of two young children, for whom she presently has 
primary responsibility, Applicant relocated to be close to her parents in 2012. She did so 
to have help defray the costs of child care and supervision while she sought employment 
and, thereafter, while she worked.  
 
Although Applicant finds money is tight at present, she is meeting all of her regular, 
monthly obligations. There is no evidence she has acquired new delinquent debt. Starting 
with her smaller debts, she has directly satisfied all but three delinquent debts. Of those 
three debts, two unknown medical collection efforts from between 2012 and 2014 are no 
longer reflected in her more recent credit report. While the basis for their removal is 
 
 
 
 
7 
unknown, it is plainly not because they are dated. Consequently, only one delinquent debt 
is clearly left unaddressed. 
 
Applicant is now enrolled in financial counseling. With that aid, she should learn 
techniques and garner advice as to how to best address her remaining debt and apply a 
substantial tax refund she is awaiting. While the evidence does not indicate that Applicant 
is living beyond her means, it does reflect that she is presently raising her children on her 
present income, meeting her recurring obligations, and not acquiring new financial 
burdens. Given her efforts to honor her debts to date, her strategy for addressing them, 
her current financial counseling, and her present ability to meet her debts, I find that she 
has mitigated trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. 
 
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: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j:   For Applicant 
 
          Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the interest of national security to permit Applicant to maintain a public 
trust position. Eligibility for a public trust position is granted. 
 
 
                                                   
_____________________________ 
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 
Administrative Judge