KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal presented matters not contained in the record.  A Judge cannot
reasonably be expected to consider facts and circumstances that were not presented to him or her
and made part of the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-03721
DATE: 10/28/2009
DATE: October 28, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-03721
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Jonathan M. Andes, Esq., Personal Representative
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 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) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider
denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant  appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
“[T]he individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”1
It is not made clear in Applicant’s brief whether the “discharge” of the mortgage debt was a part of the2
bankruptcy proceedings. 
 
Hearing Transcript at p. 32.3
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erroneously failed to apply
mitigating condition  ¶ 20(d)  in Applicant’s favor.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the1
Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination. 
Large portions of Applicant’s appeal brief discuss matters that were not part of the record
below.  The main thrust of Applicant’s argument is that the Judge relied on outdated credit reports
and did not take into consideration the fact that an outstanding, delinquent mortgage debt of
$314,753 was discharged during early 2009, prior to the hearing, and that other debts in the amount
of $39,753 have since been discharged in bankruptcy.  Included in Applicant’s appeal is a more
recent credit report, prepared after the hearing, which indicates that Applicant’s debt has been greatly
reduced.  
Applicant’s brief introduces new evidence, which the Board cannot consider on appeal.
Directive, ¶ E3.1.29.  Moreover, the Judge cannot reasonably be expected to consider facts and
circumstances that were not presented to him and made part of the record.  There is no record
evidence of a discharge in bankruptcy for Applicant.  Likewise there is no record evidence of any
“discharge” of the delinquent mortgage debt.   Applicant represents that the resolution of the2
mortgage debt took place prior to the hearing.  However, there is no mention of this in the record;
and when discussing the mortgage debt during the hearing, Applicant indicated only that her house
had been foreclosed upon and that she saw a “for sale” sign on the property when she drove by one
day.   Had additional or updated facts been available at the time of the hearing, it was up to3
Applicant to get those facts into the record.  The Judge is under no obligation to obtain evidence to
update the record.  Applicant has failed to establish error.
Order
The Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett         
 Jeffrey D. Billett 
Administrative Judge
            Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board