KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence.  The Appeal Board cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence is not enough to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-01564.a1
DATE: 01/28/2015
DATE: January 28, 2015
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for a Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-01564
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant eligibility
for a public trust position.  On June 13, 2014, DOHA 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 disposition on the written record.  On November 20, 2014, after
the close of the record, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. declined to grant Applicant
eligibility for a public trust position.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness
determination is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board
affirms the Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination. 
The Judge made the following findings of fact:  Applicant is 42 years old and is married.
She has been continuously employed since 2003.  The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits
substantiate, 12 delinquent debts totaling over $15,000.  Applicant admits six debts for nearly
$15,000.  Six disputed debts total $471.  Applicant attributes her debts to her husband’s surgery and
subsequent disability.  Applicant claimed, without corroboration, to be making monthly payments
on four of her debts.  She provided no budget or personal financial statement indicating her family’s
financial situation.  She has not documented any credit or financial counseling.  She provided no
work or character references.  
The Judge reached the following conclusions: The Government established a case for
disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns.  While
some of Applicant’s financial difficulties may be reasonably attributable to her husband’s surgery
and subsequent disability, she has not provided a chronology that establishes that claim and she
submitted insufficient information to determine she acted responsibly under the circumstances.  She
documented little efforts to resolve her debts, and did not provide a proposed plan to address them.
In addition, there is no evidence that she has sought credit counseling or otherwise brought the
problem under control.  There is little evidence of any good-faith effort to satisfy the debts listed in
the SOR.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant will put her financial problems
behind her.  Guideline F is concluded against Applicant.   
Applicant asserts that she is not disputing the facts of the case, but that she and her husband
are trying their best to get their finances back on track.  She indicates that they have disputed a
number of small debts on their credit report and that these have been removed from the report.  The
Board construes this argument as an assertion that the Judge did not properly consider Applicant’s
evidence in mitigation.  Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge.  
Applicant’s assertion that disputed debts have been removed from her credit report is not
established by the record below.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.
A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-00826 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2010).
Applicant has not overcome the presumption.  The Judge’s ultimate conclusion that the mitigating
evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the government’s concern over Applicant’s
eligibility for a position of trust is sustainable.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the
evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence,
or vice versa.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 09-04275 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 18, 2011).  A party’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
3
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case
No. 10-01100 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2011). 
The Board does 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.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
his 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 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