KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable trustworthiness determination.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 06-22100.ind
DATE: 01/17/2008
DATE: January 17, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-22100
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 April 2, 2007,
DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.d through 1.n, and 1.s.  Those1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
Decision at 7.2
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 a hearing.  On September 26, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E.
Malone denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant timely appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that
the trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did
not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which showed that Applicant had paid
15 of her 22 debts in full, made payment arrangements with respect to another four, enrolled in a
financial budgeting class, and as a result had reduced her outstanding indebtedness from $15,000 to
$5,000.  She also notes that she has been a good, dependable employee, who has never mishandled
sensitive information.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 
In his decision, the Judged noted that Applicant’s work record had been impressive and that
she had held a position of public trust without incident since 2002.   The Judge also found that2
Applicant had resolved certain debts and that in 2007 she attended a financial management class.
However, such factors were not wholly dispositive of the case.  The federal government need not
wait until an applicant actually mishandles sensitive information before it can deny or revoke access
to such information.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 06-09293 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 6, 2007).
Trustworthiness determinations are not limited to consideration of an applicant's job performance
or conduct during duty hours, and off-duty conduct can be relevant in assessing an applicant's
trustworthiness eligibility. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 06-07581 at 2 (App. Bd. May 17, 2007).  An
applicant with exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative trustworthiness
implications.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 06-09293 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 6, 2007).  The Directive's
Guidelines set forth a variety of examples of off-duty conduct and circumstances which are of
trustworthiness concern to the government and mandate a whole-person analysis to determine an
applicant's trustworthiness eligibility.  Such an analysis is not confined to the workplace.  See, e.g.,
ADP Case No. 06-13629 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).
Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts
to the applicant to establish mitigation.  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.  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
Decision at 6 and 7.3
Decision at 6-7.4
Decision at 6.5
3
evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ADP Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations, which arose from an over reliance on credit cards, poor financial practices, and
procrastination.   At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had significant delinquent debts and was3
still in the process of resolving her financial problems.  Therefore, 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 length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible
application of relevant mitigating conditions and whole person factors.  He gave Applicant some
credit for the fact that she had received guidance on financial management and had resolved many
of her debts.   As a result, he found in her favor with respect to most of the SOR allegations.4
However, the Judge reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in
mitigation was insufficient to overcome all the government’s trustworthiness concerns—noting in
particular that Applicant had waited to resolve her outstanding indebtedness until after she had
received the DOHA interrogatories and it was clear that her eligibility for access to sensitive
information was in jeopardy.   The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable record5
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).
Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable trustworthiness
determination under Guidelines F 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board