KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Applicant failed to
demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 12-08414.a1
DATE: 11/30/2015
DATE: November 30, 2015
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 12-08414
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 July 29, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On September 4, 2015, after the
close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)Administrative Judge Claude
R. Heiny 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, or 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 46 years old.  She has unpaid
taxes, delinquent debts following a home foreclosure and a repossession, and eight collection and
charged-off accounts, which together total more than $57,000.   She was unemployed from late 2007
until early 2011.  In 2008 she returned to school and incurred student loan debts in excess of
$20,000.  In early 2012, her debt delinquencies included $12,500 on a mortgage, $18,000 on student
loans, $12,000 in state property tax, and three other accounts in the amount of $15,000.  
In 2012, Applicant was interviewed about her delinquent obligations.  At that time, she
acknowledged some debts, and claimed unfamiliarity with others.  She explained how some of the
debts came about and that none of them were paid.  She never indicated that she intended to pay her
debts.  In 2014, in response to written financial interrogatories, Applicant submitted a budget,
wherein her net monthly income after expenses and debt payment was $87.  She included four of
the SOR debts in her budget but indicated she was making no payments on these debts.  The only
monthly payment she was making was $225 on an automobile loan.  She provided a receipt
indicating she had paid a $19 medical bill.  
Applicant provided no evidence of credit or financial counseling.  
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors
for financial considerations.  Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  She produced
limited evidence of circumstances beyond her control.  She has been full-time employed since 2012,
and the only document showing payment was a $19 payment in 2014 on a medical debt.  She has
not demonstrated that her financial problems are under control or that she has a plan to bring them
under control.  There is no documentation she has maintained contact with her creditors or reached
a repayment agreement with any of them.  Having paid only $19 on her delinquent debt in the past
three and a half years, she has not acted responsibly or reasonably under the circumstances.  
 
Applicant argues that she has been a diligent and trustworthy employee who has never
handled sensitive information inappropriately.  She asserts that, despite her financial profile of the
last three years, She is no risk to her company or its security policies.  Applicant’s arguments do not
establish error on the part of the Judge.
Applicant’s appeal submission contains assertions and documents that were not part of the
record below.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Applicant’s  favorable work record was evidence that the Judge
was required to consider.  However, such evidence does not mandate a favorable decision.
Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached
3
conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  
In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a significant history of
not meeting financial obligations, and that she had not demonstrated responsible actions with regard
to her debts.  Central to the Judge’s analysis was his finding that, despite having income from a full-
time position for a year and a half, Applicant had managed to retire only a single debt in the amount
of $19.  This finding, and the resulting conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated reasonable
behavior with regard to her debts, are supported by the record.  The Judge adequately discussed why,
given the state of the record, the disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was not
mitigated.
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
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
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable trustworthiness decision is sustainable.
Order
The Judge’s 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        
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board