KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s presentation on appeal is insufficient to overcome the presumption that a
Judge considered all the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-02388.a1
DATE: 04/21/2010
DATE: April 21, 2010
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 09-02388
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a
trustworthiness designation.  On August 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 January 28, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge properly applied the
pertinent mitigating conditions; whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous; and
whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Finding no error, we affirm. 
The Judge found that Applicant had two delinquent debts, both for credit cards, one in the
amount of $15,082 and the other in the amount of $11,861.  Applicant had entered into repayment
plans for both of these debts.  For the former one, she is to pay $400 a month, beginning December
2009.  This payment will only cover the interest cost rather than reduce principal.  For the second
she is to pay $250 a month, beginning after the close of the record.  Applicant also had a smaller debt
owed to a credit union, which she had paid and which the Judge resolved in her favor.
Applicant’s youngest child was born prematurely and required medical assistance to survive.
Another child also had serious medical problems.  Additionally, Applicant herself suffered a fall and
has pain in her back and hip, for which she cannot afford physical therapy.  She also experienced
unemployment in the recent past.  She and her husband have around $1,100 each month after
expenses.  She enjoys an excellent reputation at work for the quality of her job performance,
integrity, professionalism, and contribution to her employer’s mission.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not extend the proper weight to her mitigating
evidence, for example the medical and unemployment issues which impacted her financial situation.
She also mentions the fact that her debts were not due to deliberate failure to pay and that she is
making good on current expenses.  We have examined these contentions in light of the record as a
whole.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ADP Case
No. 08-06284 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 10, 2009).  In this case, the Judge discussed Applicant’s financial
and medical issues, as well as other circumstances underlying her financial problems.  However, he
also concluded that she had not demonstrated reasonable responses to the financial consequences of
her misfortunes.  “In the last 12 months, she and her husband were employed, yet they only paid
about $2,000 towards her SOR debts.”  Decision at 10.  He also noted that these debts have actually
increased during the past 12 months by more than she has paid them down.  Applicant’s presentation
on appeal is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge has considered all of the evidence.
The Judge has plausibly explained why he concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden
of persuasion as to the mitigating conditions.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 07-12305 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr.
23, 2009) (“Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden
shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.”)
3
Concerning the whole-person analysis, we conclude that the Judge considered the totality of
Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision. Directive ¶ E2.2.  See also ISCR Case No. 08-02464
at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 16, 2009).  After reviewing the record, we conclude 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 unfavorable trustworthiness
determination is sustainable.
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination 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