KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence.  Applicant’s
presentation was insufficient to rebut that presumption.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-05959
DATE: 08/19/2009
DATE: August 19, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-05959
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 February 27, 2009, 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)
2
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 16, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness
determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant works for a federal
contractor in administrative support.  Her husband is in the military.  Applicant has approximately
$30,770 in delinquent debt.  She also has about $200,000 in student loans.  Three of the debts
alleged in the SOR are for student loans in collection status, although the Judge noted that
Applicant’s credit report appears to have contradictory information about the status of the student
loans.  Other debts alleged in the SOR are for credit card debts, an automobile repossession, a state
tax lien, and other similar matters.  Although Applicant handles the family money, she does not
maintain a budget.  She has experienced periods of unemployment in the recent past.  Applicant’s
character references describe her as trustworthy, dependable, and loyal.  They state that she has a
strong work ethic.
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider significant record evidence, such as
various steps which she has taken to reduce her debt load.  However, a Judge is presumed to have
considered all the evidence in the record.  The matters which Applicant has presented in her brief
are not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb.
20, 2009) and ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  
The record demonstrates that the Judge addressed the evidence which Applicant submitted
in her own behalf.  However, the Judge also considered record evidence that Applicant does not
maintain a budget, that she has not followed through on promises to address her debts, and that she
has not had financial counseling.  The Judge also noted that Applicant’s claim to have disputed
various debts was not supported by corroborating evidence.  The Board concludes that the Judge has
“articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for her conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found” and her ultimate adverse decision.  See ADP Case No. 06-12901 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul.
31, 2007).  The Judge’s decision is sustainable on this record. 
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board