KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence unless he or she states
otherwise.  Applicant has not overcome that presumption.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07882.a1
DATE: 04/16/2010
DATE: April 16, 2010
In Re:
----
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-07882
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 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
2
Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).
Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 26, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy
F. Foreman 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
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Specifically, Applicant contends that the Judge
did not fully consider the documentation and information she provided.  Applicant also points out
that there are differences between a past credit report and a more recent one and that debts occur
more than once on each credit report.  Finding no error, we affirm the Judge’s trustworthiness
decision.
The Judge made the following relevant findings of fact: Applicant is unmarried and has four
children ages 11 through 18, all of whom live with her. Applicant receives no child support.
Applicant occasionally contributes toward the expenses of her oldest son’s child.  Applicant admitted
owing a significant number of the debts listed in the SOR.  The debts Applicant has admitted total
about $13,000.  Among the debts Applicant denied are seven judgments which she had satisfied.
A few other SOR debts are duplicates.  After receiving the SOR, Applicant sent a $5 payment to five
of her creditors.  Three of the creditors accepted the payment, and two did not.  Applicant’s monthly
take-home pay (including food stamps) is at least $466 less than her expenses.         
Applicant contends that the Judge did not fully consider the documentation and information
she provided.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  In this case, the Judge specifically
discussed Applicant’s evidence, including documentation she submitted after the hearing, but before
the close of the record.  Applicant has not overcome the presumption.
Applicant points out that there are differences between a past credit report and a more recent
one and that some debts appear more than once on each credit report.  Applicant had the opportunity
at the hearing to point out specific information in the credit reports which she wished the Judge to
note, and she did call attention to her efforts to improve her financial situation.  The Judge
mentioned Applicant’s efforts to improve her financial situation, and he concluded that some of the
debts alleged in the SOR were duplicates.
In effect, Applicant is arguing that the Judge did not give adequate weight to her evidence
of 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.  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 that 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. 07-01610 at 2 (Mar. 7, 2008).  Here, the Judge discussed Applicant’s mitigating
3
evidence, although he concluded her efforts to improve her financial situation were not sufficient to
mitigate the government’s trustworthiness concerns.  Applicant has not demonstrated error.
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)).  The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness decision is sustainable on this
record. 
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness decision is AFFIRMED.
 
 
Signed: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, 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