KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial record evidence.  Applicant
failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASE NO: 12-01251.a1
DATE: 04/24/2014
DATE: April 24, 2014
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 12-01251
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 July 30, 2013, DoD 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 decision on the written record.  On January 30, 2014, after considering the record,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 his findings of
fact and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant seeks access to a sensitive position with a Defense contractor.  She divorced her
first husband in 1993.  Her second marriage was from 2000 to 2004.  Her SOR lists several
delinquent debts, for medical treatment, student loans, etc.  Applicant states that she has disputed
errors in her credit reports.  She also stated that the medical expenses were due to an emergency and
that she was not aware of unpaid accounts.  She advised that she had been laid off from her
employment between 2004 and 2008.  During her interview, she stated that she had not contacted
her creditors or made arrangements to resolve her debts but promised to do so.  In her answers to
DOHA interrogatories, she again promised to begin resolving them.  She presented corroborating
evidence regarding three payments toward the satisfaction of one of the 26 debts alleged in the SOR.
 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems raised trustworthiness concerns.
In evaluating her case for mitigation, the Judge considered factors that were beyond Applicant’s
control, such as her unemployment and medical issues.  He concluded, however, that she had not
demonstrated responsible action, in light of evidence that only one of her debts was being resolved.
Moreover, he found that she had not initiated a good-faith effort to pay off her debts.  In the whole-
person analysis, the Judge made reference to a lack of evidence concerning debt resolution.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge made errors in his findings of fact concerning her age and
the date of her first marriage.  Applicant’s contention is correct.  However, it is unlikely that these
errors affected the Judge’s overall decision.  Accordingly, these errors are harmless.  Viewed as a
whole, the Judge’s findings of fact are based upon substantial record evidence.  See, e.g., ADP Case
No. 12-01023 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014).  Applicant cites to her evidence, such as her responses
to the SOR and to the File of Relevant Material, in which she addresses her efforts to dispute certain
debts and her efforts at resolution.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in
the record.  See, e.g., ADP 12-04343 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013).  The Judge made findings about
the evidence favorable to Applicant, including her claim that her credit reports contain errors.  His
adverse decision, however, appears to have rested in large measure on a paucity of evidence,
including corroborating evidence, to show that Applicant has attempted to resolve her delinquent
debts.  This approach is consistent with the record that was before him, except for the harmless error
noted above.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence.
 
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  The standard applicable to trustworthiness
3
cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding
security clearances: such a determination “may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-04343 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013).
See also  Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.  
Order
The Decision 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