KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge addressed Applicant’s debt payments, but his conclusion that they were
minimal, with little impact on her overall debt situation, was consistent with the record that was
before him.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01255.a1
DATE: 01/07/2015
DATE: January 7, 2015
In Re:
-------------------------------
Applicant for Position of Trust
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-01255
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 June 5, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 17, 2014, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied
Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is seeking a trustworthiness designation pertinent to her job as a Defense
contractor, a position she has held since late 2013.  She shares living expenses with a boyfriend.
Aside from about $200 in cash, she has no assets.
Applicant’s employment history consists of several different jobs and three periods of
unemployment.  One such period of unemployment occurred from June to October 2013, when she
left her job to care for her mother.  Another was when she left a job to relocate and yet another when
she had a baby.
Applicant has a history of financial problems.  This history includes a discharge in Chapter
7 bankruptcy; seven medical accounts; seven other past due accounts, including a vehicle
repossession; and two collection accounts.  Her bankruptcy “resulted from her youth and
inexperience,” in that she took on more debt than she could repay.  Decision at 3.  She has been in
contact with creditors and has made small payments to a number of them in recent months.  She
intends to keep making small payments until she is able to file a second bankruptcy petition.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the Guideline E allegation in Applicant’s favor.  Regarding the
allegations under Guideline F, he concluded that the seven medical debts did not raise security
concerns.  However, he found that Applicant’s remaining debts did raise concerns, ones that she had
failed to mitigate.  He stated that she had done little to resolve these debts, making “what are
essentially token payments that have no material impact on debt reduction.”  Id. at 4.  He stated that
her plan to file for a second bankruptcy, while legal, does not qualify as a good-faith effort to resolve
her problems.  He concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a plan for debt resolution.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to her evidence of debt repayment and good job performance.  Applicant’s
brief is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  Neither is it sufficient to show that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence.  See,
e.g., ADP Case No. 14-00700 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014).  The Judge addressed Applicant’s
payments, but his conclusion that they were minimal, with little impact on her overall debt situation,
was consistent with the record that was before him.  Failure to satisfy delinquent debts may indicate
a lack of judgment, “which can raise questions about an individual’s . . . ability to protect” sensitive
information.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18.  Applicant states that the Judge’s adverse decision has
resulted in the loss of her job, thereby working a substantial hardship on her.  We are not able to
consider the effect that an unfavorable trustworthiness determination might have on an Applicant’s
employment.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-07290 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2009). 
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
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board