1 
 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 17-00086  
 ) 
Applicant for Position of Trust ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq. Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DOD) intent to deny her 
eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant failed to demonstrate financial 
rehabilitation or a track record of debt repayment. Eligibility is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On February 24, 2017, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
eligibility concerns under the financial considerations guideline. DOD adjudicators were 
unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s 
access to sensitive information and recommended her case be submitted to an 
administrative judge for consideration. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing.1 The 
Government submitted its written case on April 6, 2017. A complete copy of the file of 
relevant material (FORM) and the Directive were provided to Applicant. She received 
the FORM on April 12, 2017. She did not respond. The documents appended to the 
FORM are admitted as Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, without objection. On 
                                                          
1 GE 1. 
 
 
2 
 
October 25, 2017, I opened the record to allow the parties to submit additional 
information about the financial issues alleged in the SOR. Neither party offered a 
submission.  
 
Findings of Fact 
  
 Applicant has worked for a federal contactor since November 2014. Her position 
requires access to sensitive information. She completed an eligibility application in April 
2016, indicating that she owed delinquent accounts for a payday loan, traffic tickets, and 
medical bills during a time she did not have medical insurance. The ensuing 
investigation determined that Applicant had additional delinquent accounts. The SOR 
alleges and Applicant admits she owes $13,400 on 19 delinquent accounts. Despite 
indicating on her eligibility application that she was making payments toward her 
delinquent accounts, she did not provide any documentation in response to the SOR or 
the FORM to corroborate those claims.  
  
Law and Policy 
 
This case is adjudicated under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense 
Industrial Personnel Security Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); 
and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG), effective June 8, 2017. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations 
may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgement, 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 a greater risk of having to engage in 
illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.2  
 
The record establishes the Government’s prima facie case has that Applicant has 
demonstrated a history of not meeting her financial obligations and having an inability to 
pay her creditors.3 Applicant receives some mitigation because some of the delinquent 
debt is for medical accounts she incurred during a time she did not have insurance. 
Generally, medical debt is not an indication of financially reckless or irresponsible 
behavior. However, Applicant did not present any information to demonstrate a track 
record of debt repayment or financial rehabilitation or reform. Accordingly, the eligibility 
concerns related to her history of financial problems remain. None of the financial 
considerations mitigating conditions apply. 
 
                                                          
2 AG ¶ 18. 
 
3 AG ¶¶ 19 (a), (c).  
 
3 
 
  At this time, Applicant is not a good candidate for access to sensitive information 
because of her financial situation. In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered 
the whole-person factors at AG ¶ 2(d). This decision should not be construed as a 
determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the type of financial stability 
necessary to justify the granting of a position of trust. The award of access to sensitive 
information is not a once in a lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, 
both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. While Applicant’s eligibility 
to occupy a position of trust information is denied at this time, she may well demonstrate 
persuasive evidence to merit access to sensitive information in the future.  
 
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, Financial Considerations:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.s:      Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of 
national security to grant Applicant access to sensitive information. Applicant’s eligibility 
to occupy a position of trust is denied.                                                
 
 
 
________________________ 
Nichole L. Noel 
Administrative Judge