KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: It is appropriate for a Judge to assign diminished weight or no weight at all to an
incomplete exhibit.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 08-09058.a1
DATE: 12/18/2009
DATE: December 18, 2009
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-09058
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge found in Applicant’s favor for one debt, which Applicant demonstrated was not hers.1
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a
trustworthiness designation.  On May 8, 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 September 30, 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 findings of fact: Applicant works for a federal contractor as
an executive assistant.  She has two children.  Her husband is unemployed and has not worked since
2005.  Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $13,687.  Although Applicant denied
certain debts and claimed that others were paid (either in full or in part), she provided no
corroboration for these statements.   The Judge considered pertinent mitigating conditions, but she1
concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion.  The Judge noted that, in
addition to not corroborating her claims of payment, Applicant had not received financial counseling,
had not provided a credible basis for disputing her debts, and had generally failed to demonstrate a
track record of responsible action.
Applicant cites to a credit report she submitted to the Judge.  The Judge noted that that credit
report was incomplete, comprising only the first four pages of a 22-page document.  It is appropriate
for a Judge to assign diminished weight, or no weight at all, to such an exhibit.
In support of her appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the case
record, which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be
received or considered by the Appeal Board.”).  See also ADP Case No. 08-03721 at 2 (App. Bd.
Oct. 28, 2009).
  
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. 
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan              
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board