KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge stated that Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her financial issues
and her promise to pay is not sufficient to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-04923.a1
DATE: 05/09/2008
DATE: May 9, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 07-04923
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) declined to grant Applicant a
trustworthiness designation.  On August 31, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
2
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 decision on the written record.  On January 23,  2008, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a
trustworthiness designation.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
The Board construes Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness
determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, totaling $13,258, for such
things as credit card accounts, medical bills, and unpaid traffic tickets.  Applicant denied owing
certain of the debts, though the Judge found that her denials were not corroborated.  Applicant had
not consulted with a credit counseling service.  The Judge considered various mitigating conditions
but concluded that none were sufficient to justify granting a trustworthiness designation.  In his
whole person analysis the Judge stated that “Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her
financial issues.  Her promise to pay her debts in the future is not sufficient to mitigate” the
trustworthiness concerns raised by her financial problems.  Decision at 6.  
Examining Applicant’s appeal in light of the record as a whole, the Board concludes that the
Judge has articulated “a satisfactory explanation for [his] conclusions, including a rational
connection between the facts found” and his adverse trustworthiness determination.  See ADP Case
No. 06-12901 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2007).  Applicant has submitted new evidence in support of
her appeal.  The Board cannot consider new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Accordingly, the
Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination 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
3
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board