KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline F security
concerns in her case is sustainable.  Applicant submitted new matters on appeal, which the Board
cannot consider.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-03418.a1
DATE: 05/13/2009
DATE: May 13, 2009
In Re:
 ----------------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-03418
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 September 24, 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 decision on the written record.  On March 10, 2009, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a
trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Board construes Applicant’s appeal as contending that the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a service representative.
she has been separated from her husband for many years, currently receiving “intermittent” child
support from him.  Decision at 2.  Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, including a $9,354
student loan that had been placed in collection in 1992.  The total amount of the delinquent debts
alleged in the SOR is $30,964.  In ruling against her, the Judge noted that she provided little or no
information in response to the File of Relevant Material regarding her indebtedness and financial
circumstances.  Applicant enjoys a good reputation for character, work ethic, and trustworthiness,
as evidenced by letters of reference which she submitted in response to the SOR.  
In support of her appeal, Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record,
which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
considered by the Appeal Board”).  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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)).  In light of the entirety of the record
evidence, the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is sustainable.
Order 
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination 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
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board