KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of trustworthiness concern are based on substantial
evidence or constitute characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10098.a1
DATE: 01/06/2012
DATE: January 6, 2012
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 08-10098
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 October 15, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
September 27, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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’s findings of fact
contained errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a
Defense contractor.  He holds a bachelor’s degree is business marketing.  He and his wife separated
in 2010.  His wife’s daughter from a previous marriage lives with Applicant.  The wife provides
limited financial support for her daughter.  
Applicant worked for a law enforcement agency from 1989 until 2005, during which time
he held a security clearance.  He lost his job after his clearance was revoked.  The revocation was
the result of Applicant’s financial problems, criminal conduct, and personal conduct issues.  The
criminal conduct included bad checks and reckless driving.  He also used a Government travel card
to pay expenses for a family vacation and failed to reimburse the Government.  Applicant was
disciplined for having failed to report the criminal incidents to his Government employer.  He also
“disclosed that he had issued another bad check in June 2010 . . . Applicant admitted to issuing the
three bad checks, but he claimed that he reviewed his bank account balance prior to issuing the
checks.”  Decision at 3.  
Additionally, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 1998.  He stated that
he had done so because he wanted to discharge his own personal debts in order to be better able to
assist his wife in paying off her own debts that she had brought to the marriage.  He also had 19
delinquent debts, unpaid as of the close of the record.  These debts included judgments against
Applicant in favor of the creditors.  In the Analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant accumulated
these debts after his discharge in bankruptcy.  Applicant attributed his financial problems to periods
of unemployment.  
In 2008, Applicant completed his application for a public trust position.  He failed to disclose
a 1998 bad check and subsequent criminal charge.  He failed to disclose the judgement against him
and denied having any debts that were more than 180 days delinquent.    
In analyzing Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge stated that the repeated nature of
Applicant’s Guideline E misconduct indicates that he is not learning from his mistakes and that the
misconduct is likely to recur.  Under Guideline F, he noted that Applicant’s debts were ongoing and
concluded that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard to them.  In the whole-person analysis
3
the Judge credited Applicant for his evidence of good character.  However, the Judge stated that
Applicant’s circumstances show a disregard for his legal obligation to pay his debts.  The Judge
ultimately concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns alleged in the
SOR.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in some of his findings.  For example, he claims that
his false answers to his trustworthiness application were not intentional and that the Judge erred in
finding that he had written three bad checks in 2010 rather than just one.  On this last point, we read
the challenged finding as referring to three instances over several years, which is consistent with the
evidence, not three instances in 2010 as Applicant reads the finding .  The Judge’s material findings
of trustworthiness concern are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable
characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 10-
01100 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2011).  Applicant has submitted new evidence in support of his
appeal, for example character references.  We cannot consider new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
See ADP Case No. 08-09058 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2009).  
The record supports a conclusion 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 decision not to grant Applicant
a trustworthiness designation is sustainable. 
Order
The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                   
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody                 
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board