1
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ADP Case No. 17-04154 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINTZELMAN, Caroline E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant mitigated trustworthiness concerns raised by her debts. Eligibility for a 
public trust position is granted. 
 
History of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an application for a public trust position on March 28, 2017. 
On December 28, 2017, 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); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all adjudicative decisions on or after June 8, 2017. 
Applicant answered the SOR on January 18, 2018, and requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge.  
 
I was assigned to the case on May 1, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Defense Office 
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled for 
June 11, 2018, and I issued an order to both parties to produce their documentary 
evidence by June 1, 2018. Department Counsel submitted her documentation as 
requested. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 
 2
6 and Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through F, were admitted without objection. Applicant 
and her domestic partner testified. I held the record open until July 16, 2018, to allow 
Applicant to submit additional documentation. I received the completed transcript (Tr.) on 
June 20, 2018. On July 16, 2018, Applicant submitted AE G through Q, which were 
admitted without objection, and the record closed.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is 54 years old. Since May 2017, she has been a supervisor of medical 
review and appeals for a defense contractor. She requires a public trust position for her 
employment. In 1991, she received an associate’s degree in nursing and became a 
licensed practical nurse. (Tr. 10) She divorced in 1998 after 10 years of marriage and has 
two adult children. She has been in a committed relationship with her partner for the past 
13 years. (Tr. 11) 
 
The SOR alleges that Applicant has 46 delinquent debts totaling $19,217, 40 of 
which are medical debts. These debts became delinquent between 2011 and 2017. She 
admitted to all of the debts in the SOR with the exception of SOR ¶¶ 1.w, 1.aa, and 1.ii.1 
Her finances were negatively affected by her divorce, medical issues, her daughter’s 
medical bills, her partner’s medical bills, and various periods of unemployment. (Tr. 33-
34, 48) 
 
In 2003, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.2 The bankruptcy was the result 
of her 1998 divorce and her ex-husband’s failure to pay various bills. (Tr. 33-34) 
 
In approximately 2004, Applicant was diagnosed with three chronic diseases. A 
few years later, she was hospitalized 13 times within an 18-month period. Her illnesses 
caused her to miss work, which resulted in periods without pay3 and ultimately led to 
terminations from multiple employers due to absenteeism. Her last period of 
unemployment was from February to May 2017. When she did have health insurance, it 
covered only approximately 80% of her medical expenses. Additionally, during her 
various periods of unemployment, she did not have medical insurance. (Tr. 13, 20-23, 25, 
29, 35-38; AE B; AE G) 
 
Applicant provided documentation that she paid SOR ¶ 1.a in May 2018. (Tr. 46; 
AE C; AE D) In January 2018, Applicant started working with a credit-counseling program. 
Since March 2018, she has made bi-weekly payments of $75 to the program. The money 
is automatically withdrawn from her paychecks and is applied to various bills held by a 
single medical creditor. As of July 8, 2018, she has paid almost $1,275 toward this plan. 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s credit-counseling program informed her that SOR ¶ 1.w is a duplicate of SOR ¶ 1.v; SOR ¶ 
1.aa is a duplicate of SOR ¶ 1.z; and SOR ¶ 1.ii is a duplicate of SOR ¶ 1.hh. (Tr. 55-56) 
 
2 Because it was not alleged in the SOR, I will only consider this information as a factor in evaluating 
credibility, mitigation, and whole–person factors. 
 
3 When Applicant was employed, she often missed weeks of work due to her multiple medical issues. 
Because she had exhausted her leave, she did not always receive a paycheck. (Tr. 29-30) 
 3
The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k, 1.l, 1.m, 1.o, 1.p, 1.q, 1.s, 1.y, 
1.bb, 1.dd, 1.ee, 1.ff, 1.hh, 1.jj, 1.mm, 1.nn, 1qq, 1.rr, and 1.ss are included in the payment 
agreement. (Tr. 13, 17, 42-44, 46; AE E; AE F; AE G; AE H) 
 
Prior to entering the credit-counseling program, Applicant made intermittent 
payments, totaling between $3,000 and $4,000, toward her medical debts. (Tr. 26-27, 33) 
In June 2018, Applicant started working with an additional medical creditor to pay $100 a 
month for unalleged debts. (Tr. 37-38, 41, 53; AE B; AE G)  
 
Applicant has filed all of her state and federal income tax returns, and her taxes 
are current. (Tr. 39) She has a written budget and an emergency savings account. Her 
budget demonstrates that her income exceeds her expenses. (Tr. 39-41; AE F) She is up 
to date on her current financial obligations, including her home loan, car loan, student 
loan, credit cards, utilities, and auto and whole life insurance policies. Additionally, she is 
not accumulating new debt. Her July 2018 credit report indicates her credit score is 
increasing. (Tr. 46-47, 54; GE 3; AE G; AE H; AE K; AE L; AE M; AE N; AE O; AE P; AE 
Q) 
 
Applicant submitted documentation reflecting her positive work performance for 
her current employer. (Tr. 15-16; AE A) Additionally, she received a cash bonus of $1,200 
from her employer last year. (Tr. 19) Applicant’s witness testified to her honesty, 
trustworthiness, hard work, and desire to resolve her financial issues. (Tr. 49-51, 61) 
  
Policies 
 
The standard set out in the adjudicative guidelines 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. 
(AG ¶¶ 1(d) and 2(c).) 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. 
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 
adjudicative guidelines. 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 national security eligibility 
will be resolved in favor of national security.” The Government must present substantial 
 4
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 national security eligibility. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The concern under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) is set out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
Failure 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. Financial distress can also be 
caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other 
issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental 
health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An 
individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to 
engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds . . . .   
 
 The record evidence establishes two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: 
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial 
obligations). 
 
 AG ¶ 20 describes conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following 
are potentially applicable in this case: 
 
(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 medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the 
problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit 
counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being 
resolved or is under control; and 
 5
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant experienced personal financial issues related to her chronic medical 
issues and employment, which were circumstances beyond her control. The vast majority 
of her debts are related to medical treatment. Her financial issues were not the result of 
frivolous or irresponsible spending. She sought credit counseling to resolve her debts in 
a responsible manner. Applicant provided proof that she has resolved or is making 
payments toward many of her delinquent debts. Although she has not provided proof of 
payment toward all of her debts, her actions demonstrate an overall good-faith effort to 
repay creditors. She is willing and able to live within her means, which is reflected in the 
testimonial and documentary evidence. She has no new delinquent debts, demonstrating 
her circumstances have changed and she is reliable. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a), 20(b), 
20(c), and 20(d) is established.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust 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. 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(d), 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. I considered the potentially 
disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances 
surrounding this case. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial 
considerations.  
 
 
 
 
 6
Formal Findings 
 
I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations):   FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.tt:      For Applicant    
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public 
trust position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. 
 
    ___________________________ 
CAROLINE E. HEINTZELMAN 
Administrative Judge