KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  Applicant’s
deliberate falsification of his application was relevant in evaluating his case for rehabilitation. 
Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-04085.a1
DATE: 05/13/2013
DATE: May 13, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 11-04085
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation.
On January 19, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 22, 2013, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson
denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in her application
of the mitigating conditions and whether the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
 Applicant in employed by a Defense contractor.  He has used alcohol at times to excess and
to the point of intoxication from about 1990 until 2010.  He has been arrested and convicted four
times for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), in 1990, 2006, and twice in 2009.  In addition, while
serving in the U.S. military, he reported for work while drunk.  Also while in the military, he
suffered a head injury that caused anxiety and depression.  He was subsequently determined to be
60% disabled due to traumatic brain injury.  After leaving the military, his drinking increased to the
point that he would consume a 12-pack of beer daily.
As a result of his last DUI conviction, Applicant was required to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) as well as an alcohol treatment program.  In 2010 he began attending the AA
meetings, and he has been sober since June of that year.  He is also receiving psychiatric treatment
for alcoholism and for the lingering results of his brain injury.
When completing his application for a trustworthiness designation, Applicant failed to
disclose his second DUI arrest of 2009.  This failure was intentional because he did not want to lose
his job.  Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his job performance.   
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that Applicant’s circumstances raised trustworthiness concerns under both
Guidelines raised in the SOR.  Given Applicant’s extensive history with alcohol, she concluded that
enough time had not elapsed since he stopped drinking to demonstrate mitigation.  She also found
his lack of candor on the application to be troubling.  She stated that Applicant’s circumstances,
viewed as a whole, impugned his judgment and willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
Discussion
Applicant cites to several of his exhibits in contending that the Judge failed properly to apply
the mitigating conditions.  He draws our attention to evidence that he has been seeking psychiatric
treatment in addressing his problems with alcohol.  He notes that the date of his last DUI was three
years from the date of his appeal and cites evidence of his attendance at AA and at the outpatient
alcohol treatment program. He argues that he has demonstrated rehabilitation.
A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ADP
Case No. 10-02010 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 15, 2011).  The Judge made findings about the evidence
Applicant has cited and acknowledged that he had undertaken serious efforts at controlling his
drinking.  However, she concluded that the totality of Applicant’s circumstances militated against
granting him a trustworthiness designation.  See, e.g., ADP Case 05-12037 at 3 (App. Bd. May 10,
3
2007) (A Judge is required to examine an applicant’s circumstances in light of the record as a
whole).  In this case, we conclude that the Judge’s adverse decision is supportable.  Among other
things, evidence that Applicant deliberately falsified his application is relevant not only in analyzing
the Guideline E allegation but also in evaluating the extent to which he has demonstrate reliability
and trustworthiness under Guideline G.    
We do not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient
to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  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)). 
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board