KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant’s financial difficulties started in 2003..  He also found
that Applicant’s January 2009 bankruptcy filing shows in excess of $250,000 of unsecured debt. 
There is a rational connection between the facts found and the Judge’s adverse decision. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-12305.a1
DATE: 04/23/2009
DATE: April 23, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 07-12305
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
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 July 15, 2008,
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 January 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W.
Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness determination.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.
Specifically, Applicant contends that the Judge did not give adequate weight to the mitigating
evidence which he presented.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant’s financial difficulties
started in about 2003.  He was unemployed for three months and then accepted a position in another
city 200 miles away.  His wife was working on her doctorate and was unable to go with him.  The
couple purchased a recreational vehicle for Applicant to live in at his job location while his wife
remained in their home.  The cost of maintaining two households had an adverse impact on their
finances.  Added to this burden were the facts that his wife had medical problems that prevented her
from working, the couple had two elderly parents who became ill and passed away, and they had
damage to their house from a natural disaster.
Applicant’s finances were further damaged by his wife’s spending habits.  Applicant stated
that he is personally responsible for only about 5% of their debt.  Applicant’s wife was working on
attaining a doctorate degree, and she spent money on the prospect of higher future income.  She
never earned the doctorate and never obtained the higher-paying job.  One of Applicant’s wife’s
current expenditures is the leasing of a 2008 luxury automobile at the rate of $656 per month.
Applicant testified that the lease arrangement was made without his knowledge.
Applicant and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on January 3, 2009.  On Schedule D
of the filing, the couple listed the following creditors holding secured claims: the mortgage on his
house, the loans for his car and recreational vehicle, and the leased car.  On Schedule F, listing
creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims, the couple listed 24 creditors and debts totaling
$271,029.  The Chapter 13 repayment plan called for 60 monthly payments of $1,000 beginning in
February 2009.  The plan has not been approved by the bankruptcy court.  Applicant and his wife
received counseling by internet and telephone pursuant to his bankruptcy. 
Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts
to the applicant to establish mitigation.  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.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-06553 at 2 (App. Bd. April 30,
Even though the lease was undertaken without Applicant’s knowledge, it demonstrated that Applicant’s1
finances were not under control.
On April 15, 2009, the Appeal Board received a fax from Applicant indicating that his bankruptcy petition has2
now been approved.  The Board is unable to consider this new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Even if the Board
were to consider it, it would not change the fact that Applicant has not established a track record of payments under the
plan.
3
2008).  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.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).
In this case, Applicant contends that the Judge should have found his financial situation to
be mitigated because his wife was responsible for the accrual of 95 per cent of their debt.  He also
maintains that the debt is no longer a security concern since he has filed for bankruptcy.  In
considering the application of the relevant mitigating conditions, the Judge discussed Applicant’s
financial situation.  The Judge stated that Applicant was aware of his financial difficulties when he
spoke to an investigator in March 2007.  At that time, Applicant told the investigator that he intended
to resolve his delinquent debts either by entering into a debt consolidation plan or by filing for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  The Judge noted that the 2008 luxury car lease was undertaken on behalf
of Applicant’s wife after that time.   Moreover, the Judge indicated that the bankruptcy plan1
proposed by Applicant had not been approved at the time of the hearing.   Thus, the Judge concluded2
it was “still far too early in the bankruptcy process to alleviate concerns about his finances.”
Decision at 7.  
   
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  Given the extent of Applicant’s financial problems and the relative
paucity of mitigation evidence, the Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination is sustainable.
Order
The Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
The Judge’s mentioning of the statement of Applicant is problematic in that the Judge is merely referencing1
the testimony of Applicant, but stops short of making a specific finding of fact concerning the percentage of overall debt
that may be attributed to Applicant’s wife. Notwithstanding this, there is nothing in the decision to suggest the Judge
rejected Applicant’s characterization of the apportionment of responsibility of debt between him and his wife.  The
referencing of Applicant’s statement at least indicates the Judge’s awareness, in his findings of fact, that the actions of
Applicant’s wife–as opposed to Applicant–were a significant factor in the case. 
4
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Separate Opinion of Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett, Dissenting
I would remand this case to the Judge below.  I perceive a significant disconnect between the
Judge’s findings of fact and his conclusions, and it is my judgment that he has not addressed an
important aspect of the case.  My detailed reasons follow.
Applicant complains that in the Judge’s decision there is no distinction between the actions
of his wife in incurring debt and his own actions in incurring debt, and that the Judge has wrongly
attributed to him the financial actions and behaviors of his wife.  While Applicant acknowledges that
attribution of his wife’s debts to him may be appropriate in a strictly legal sense, he asserts that in
evaluating him for a trustworthiness position, the government should be concerned with his actions
(or absence thereof) concerning the generation of those debts.  In support of his position, Applicant
points to the following items in the record: (i) a letter from Applicant’s wife, dated January 12, 2009
in which she states that it was her actions and her medical problems that caused the couple’s
financial situation; (ii) his wife leased a 2008 luxury car during the same period Applicant was
driving a 1994 Chevy Cavalier, which evidenced his commitment to responsible spending on items
he could control; and (iii) Applicant lived in a recreational vehicle while working in a city away from
his home to spend as little as practical on duplicate living expenses.  I find Applicant’s argument
meritorious.
In his findings of fact, the Judge appears to recognize that the spending habits of Applicant’s
wife were a significant contributing factor to Applicant’s financial predicament.  Indeed, the Judge
notes that Applicant stated that he is personally responsible for only about 5% of the total debt.   The1
Judge also referenced Applicant’s wife’s practice of spending in anticipation of future income.  In
his conclusions section, however, the Judge does not comment upon the portion of the debt that is
attributable to Applicant’s wife, nor does he comment upon the wife’s role in the debt accumulation.
He merely states that Applicant accumulated a number of delinquent debts and was unwilling or
unable to satisfy them for a period of time.  The Judge also asserted that Applicant’s financial
problems were extensive.  While the Judge does make a single, general reference to the joint debt
accrued by Applicant and his wife, every other reference in the conclusions section is to Applicant
There is an additional reference to the leasing of the 2008 car on behalf of the wife, but no indication from the2
Judge as to who was responsible for the lease.  Record evidence indicates that the lease was arranged by the couple’s
son, and the evidence raises the possibility that Applicant was unaware, at least initially, of the arrangement. 
5
and Applicant’s debt alone.   An overall reading of the Judge’s conclusions section indicates to me2
that the Judge is laying the responsibility for the overall amount of debt upon Applicant without any
detailed comments or analysis as to why Applicant is responsible for a sizable amount of debt that
he did not personally acquire.  Because there is no discussion in the conclusions section regarding
the damage to Applicant’s finances attributable to his wife and how this factor impacts upon
Applicant’s trustworthiness, there is a significant disconnect between the findings of fact and the
conclusions portions of the Judge’s decision.   
A Judge is not required to discuss every piece of evidence in the record before him.
Nevertheless, it is error to fail to discuss and/or analyze an important aspect of the case. Faced with
evidence (Applicant’s hearing testimony that only about 5% of the outstanding debt is attributable
his actions coupled with a written statement of the wife stating her role in running up the couple’s
debt) that Applicant’s debt problems may be largely attributable to his wife, it was incumbent upon
the Judge to specifically address and analyze the issue of Applicant’s wife’s actions in the
conclusions section of his decision and to indicate the effect, if any, of the wife’s actions on the
ultimate trustworthiness determination in the case.  
I would remand the case to the Judge for correction of these errors.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                  
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board