FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s history of not meeting financial obligations over many years and current
debts outstanding support the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has ongoing financial problems. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-23881.a1
DATE: 11/02/2007
DATE: November 2, 2007
In Re:
---------
Applicant for a Position of Trust
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-23881
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 February 15,
The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g.  Those1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On May 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran
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 raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated.1
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that the trustworthiness concerns raised
by her history of financial difficulties had not been mitigated because (a) her indebtedness was due
to a circumstance beyond her control, a medical problem, (b) her unpaid debts are old and she is
current on all debts accrued since December 2003, and (c) she has paid off, or is making payments
on, a number of her debts.  Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred.
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors   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, including an unpaid state tax lien of approximately $1,808 and
approximately $45,907 in unpaid student loans.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably
conclude that 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 conditions and whole person factors.  He found in favor of Applicant with respect
to a number of the SOR allegations.  However, the Judge reasonably explained why the evidence
which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome all of 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.
The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable.  Given the record
that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable trustworthiness determination in this case is
3
sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant access to automated information systems in
ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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