KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: At the time trhe case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had significant
outstranding debts.  The Judge reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence in the case was
insufficient to overcome the Government’s trustworthiness concerns.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 12-09387.a1
DATE: 04/26/2016
DATE: April 26, 2016
In Re:
-----------------------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 12-09387
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 January 12, 2015, 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 February 17, 2016, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness
designation.  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 trustworthiness
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because her unpaid
debts were the result of a circumstance beyond her control (medical problems), and that they are not
recent and are not likely to recur.  In support of this argument, Applicant offers new evidence in the
form of a narrative statement further describing her personal circumstances.  The Board cannot
consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant’s argument does not
demonstrate that the Judge’s ultimate adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record, and then did not respond
to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  Based on the record that was before him,
the Judge found that Applicant had 24 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $69,000. 
Decision at 2.  In reaching his adverse decision, the Judge noted that, although Applicant stated that
four of the delinquent accounts related to a back surgery, “. . . there is no documentary evidence
showing how she handled the debts once they were attributed to her, or how she has addressed them
since.” Id. at 4.  In his findings, the Judge also noted that Applicant had not offered any evidence
indicating that she was disputing any of the accounts, working with her creditors, or otherwise trying
to resolve her financial problems.  Id. at 2.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably
conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. 
Once the government presents evidence raising trustworthiness concerns, the burden shifts
to the applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The presence of some mitigating
evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness 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. 07-06039 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul.
8, 2008).
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 still had significant
outstanding debts, and was still trying to resolve her financial problems.  The Judge weighed the
limited 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 Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination is sustainable.  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. 14-03541
at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2015).  See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert.
denied.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy           
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board