KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to her efforts at debt repayment.  Her argument is not enough to rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to
show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. 
CASENO: 14-02668.a1
DATE: 05/27/2016
DATE: May 27, 2016
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-02668
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 October 14, 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 March 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s
request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal:  whether the Judge failed to consider all of
the evidence and whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2010.  Her SOR lists overdue debts
totaling about $32,000, for various accounts that have been charged off, placed in collection status,
etc.  In her response to the SOR, Applicant stated that, once her divorce is finalized, she will be
responsible for only one-half of  many of the debts.  In a second SOR response Applicant stated that
she is separated from her husband and is starting to make payment arrangements with her creditors. 
She did not provide more detailed information about these plans.  Applicant has a total monthly
remainder of $103 after payment of her bills.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had provided no independent evidence to show that she was
resolving, or had reduced, her delinquent debts.  He stated that he could not conclude that Applicant
had acted responsibly regarding her financial problems.
Discussion
Applicant cites to her efforts at debt repayment.  Her argument is not enough to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to show that
the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3,
2015).  Applicant’s brief contains new evidence, which we cannot consider.  See, e.g., ADP Case
No. 14-03541, supra.  
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.
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.    
Signed: Michael Ra’anan               
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; Catherine M. Engstrom       
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3