KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board’s review of a Judge’s findings is limited to determining if they are
supported by substantial evidence such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support
such a conclusion in light of all the contrary record evidence.  In this case the Judge found that
Applicant had a history of not meet financial obligation which extended over many years. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-00375.a1
DATE: 10/24/2007
DATE: October 24, 2007
In Re:
------------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-00375
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke access to
automated information systems in ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions for Applicant.  On August 31,
2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
Applicant argues that the debts listed in SOR paragraphs 1.b and 1.c were charged off in September 2002
1
rather than in September 2001.  He also argues that in his response the government’s File of Relevant Material, he
explained the conflict between statements made in his Public Trust Position Application and his Answer to the SOR.
2
decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On May 23, 2007, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding the
trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F had not been mitigated.
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that the trustworthiness concerns raised
by his history of financial difficulties had not been mitigated because his indebtedness was due to
a circumstance beyond his control, loss of employment.  He also argues that the Judged erred with
respect to several of his findings.   The Board does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.1
The Board’s review of a Judge’s findings is limited to determining if they are supported by
substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
“This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from
being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620,
(1966).
We have considered the challenged findings in light of the record and conclude that they are
based on substantial evidence.  To the extent that there is error in the Judge’s findings we conclude
that it is harmless.  Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge’s material
findings with respect to his conduct of trustworthiness concern do not reflect a reasonable or
plausible interpretation of the record evidence.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the
Judge’s material findings of trustworthiness concern are sustainable. 
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not
turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their
application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.  See,
e.g., ADP Case No. 05-03939 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 1, 2006).  Thus, the presence of some mitigating
evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness determination.  As
the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable
evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  An applicant’s disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence,
is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner
that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations
which extended over many years.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still
had significant outstanding debts.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that
3
Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 05-16601 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jul. 2, 2007).  The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct, and considered the possible application of relevant
mitigating factors.  He reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented
in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s trustworthiness concerns.  The
favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 03-14873 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep.
28, 2006).  The Board does not review a case de novo.   Given the record that was before him, the
Judge’s ultimate unfavorable trustworthiness determination is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant access to automated information systems in
ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett         
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board