KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Promises to pay off delinquent debt in the future are not a substitute for a track record
of timely debt repayment. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03300.a1
DATE: 07/10/2015
DATE: July 10, 2015
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-03300
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 eligibility for a public trust
position.  On August 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) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On April 29, 2015, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust
position.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
did not correctly weigh the evidence.  Specifically, she states that she is dependable, faithful and
loyal, and has never been in trouble with the law.  She also states that she has good judgment and
that throughout her previous work history she has never been discharged from employment due to
untrustworthy behavior.  Additionally, she offers assurances that she will repay her outstanding
debts in the future.  Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious or contrary to law
Applicant elected to have her case decided upon the written record and filed a one-page
response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), stating that she had paid off one
of the debts and would work out repayment plans on the other debts in the future.  Applicant’s
submission on appeal contains multiple documents including a performance review, character
references, and efforts to obtain credit counseling that were not part of the record before the Judge. 
The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision.  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.  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 reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ADP Case No. 14-00860 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 12, 2015).  Moreover, promises to pay off
delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment.  Id.
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant had eight delinquent debts
totaling about $28,650, and the Judge noted that there was “a lack of evidence in the record about
how and when Applicant will address her finances.”  Decision at 2 and 4.  In light of the foregoing,
the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing and that she had not
met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable.   
The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and
seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances and considered the possible application of relevant
conditions and factors.  He reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to
overcome the government’s trustworthiness concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo. 
2
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., ADP Case No. 14-00860 supra at 2.  
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)).  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 interest of national security’.” 
See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-00860 supra at 3.  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: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3