KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence or that he failed to
consider all of the evidence.  The Judge’s reference to a Government database was not based
upon anything in the record and was speculative.  This was harmless error, however.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 13-01074.a1
DATE: 08/25/2014
DATE: August 25, 2014 
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Position of Trust
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 13-01074
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 November 19, 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 hearing.  On June 16, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant works for a Defense contractor.  She received a bachelor of applied science degree
in 2012.  Applicant began experiencing financial problems in 2007, when she was dismissed from
her job for calling in sick too often and for habitual lateness.  At that time, she was living at the limit
of, or possibly exceeding, her income.  Due to her unemployment, her accounts became delinquent.
Although she got a job at a domestic violence shelter, it did not pay enough even to cover her
monthly accounts.  She worked longer hours, went back to college to improve her resume, and
moved back in with her parents in order to save money.  Nevertheless, her accounts remained
delinquent and were placed for collection, charged off, or turned over to debt purchasers.  
In February 2011, she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and was discharged later that
year.  Her financial situation thereby improved, although she was still liable for her student loans.
She also incurred several medical bills, which she is in the process of resolving.  Concerning her
delinquent student loans, the Judge found that three of these loans had been acquired by a debt
purchaser.  The creditors for the other two could not be clearly identified.  The Judge found that
Applicant had made no effort to determine the status of her loans, nor had she sought forbearance
or deferment.  Her delinquent student loan accounts have not been resolved.  
The Judge found that Applicant’s claim to be current on all of her monthly expenses, except
for the loans, was not entirely accurate due to her remaining delinquent medical bills.  He also found
her 2013 financial statement to be confusing.  It reflected no debt payments despite an annual
remainder of over $9,000.  In May 2014 Applicant prepared another one, this one showing over
$500 a month in debt payment, with a monthly remainder of nearly $470.  Applicant stated that she
intended to move back in with her parents when her current lease expires.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant failed to explain why she had not acted more aggressively
to resolve her delinquent loans, given her evidence of an annual income remainder over $9,000.
Insofar as her debts are ongoing, the Judge stated that he could not conclude that Applicant’s
financial problems are in the past.  Aside from counseling she received in connection with her
bankruptcy action, Applicant has not received financial counseling, and there are no indications that
her problems are being resolved.  He also stated that Applicant had demonstrated little evidence of
a “good-faith effort” to pay her debts, having chosen simply to ignore them.  
Even allowing for some confusion regarding the identity of some of her student loan
creditors, Applicant has taken no steps to resolve the debts.  Despite having money left over each
month from which Applicant had promised to begin paying her student loans, she had not actually
done so by the end of the record.  The Judge stated that Applicant had failed to seek guidance from
1During the hearing, the Judge advised Applicant that she could contact the Department of Education and obtain
“a complete list of your loans and status of loans, amounts paid out, paid to [whom], who the servicing company was,
et cetera, et cetera.  Any monies that they received.”  Tr. at 62. 
3
the Department of Education or from her school financial counselor, instead ignoring her creditors
even after having been questioned by an OPM investigator in 2013.  He said that Applicant’s
circumstances, viewed as a whole, show an absence of meaningful efforts to address her student loan
debt.  This, in turn, presents ongoing, unresolved trustworthiness concerns.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief recounts in detail evidence from the record, including her job loss, the
circumstances underlying her debts, that she has never compromised sensitive or private
information, etc.  She contends that she has been working to resolve her debts and that the Judge
erred in concluding that she is a  risk.  Applicant’s appeal argument consists largely of a
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the record evidence.  However, his analysis is consistent
with the record that was before him.  Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge
mis-weighed the evidence or that he failed to consider all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g.,
ADP Case No. 12-01023 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014).
In explaining his decision to deny Applicant a trustworthiness designation, the Judge stated
that she had failed to search a Department of Education data base “or other official records of the
DOE” to ascertain the status of her loans.  He did so in support of his conclusion that she had not
taken sufficient measures to resolve her debts.  Applicant challenges the Judge’s reference to this
data base, and we find her argument persuasive.  The record contains no evidence describing the
data base, its capabilities or reach.  It does not contain evidence about the extent of DOE record
keeping, if any, that goes beyond the scope of its on line data base.  Neither is there sufficient
evidence about the nature of Applicant’s debts from which to conclude that they would be
referenced in any DOE files.  Although a Judge can take official notice of Government web sites
(see, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0452 at 4, n. 7 and 8, n. 11 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2000)), in this case his
comment was not supported by anything in the record.1  In an appropriate case, a Judge may
legitimately note an applicant’s failure to avail himself of reasonable opportunities to inquire about
the extent of his debts and the means at his disposal for resolving them.  Here, on the other hand,
the Judge’s comments were speculative and went beyond the evidence that was before him.
Accordingly, they were erroneous.  However, given the totality of the evidence, there is little
likelihood that he would have made a different decision had he not made this error.  Therefore, the
error is harmless.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00678 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2014).         
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
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
4
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 Ra’anan            
Michael 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