KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to evidence that she argues the Judge failed to consider.  The Judge
made findings about much of those matters and discussed them in his analysis.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-00892.a1
DATE: 07/12/2016
DATE: July 12, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-00892
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 April 20, 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 March 30, 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 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 in the record, rendering his overall decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, for such things as utilities, television
services, student loans, etc.  Applicant admitted the debts that the Judge resolved against her, the
largest being  the three student loans.  The Judge noted Applicant’s evidence that she was making
payments on some of the debts and that she disputed others.  For many of the debts alleged,
however, Applicant was not making payments until she had resolved others.  Concerning the student
loans, she stated that she had maxed out her Federal funding before she had completed a bachelor’s
degree.  She stated that she had a payment plan for them.
Applicant’s husband has been diagnosed with multiple severe illnesses.  He is unable to work
and requires continuing treatment.  Her son has also been diagnosed with a disorder that requires
treatment.  Her wages were garnished last year, and during that time she and her family were almost
evicted from their apartment and almost had their utilities shut off.
Applicant states that she is working with various creditors to resolve her problems.  She
acknowledges that some of her debts are very old.  She states that she plans to dispute her debts, but
she does not deny that she incurred them.  She has explored bankruptcy, but her student loans are
not dischargeable.  Therefore, she has not filed for bankruptcy on the ground that it would not help
her financial condition in a measurable way.
Applicant acknowledges that she has “made some very poor financial decisions.”  Decision
at 5.  She states that she takes “full responsibility” for her situation and is working to address her
problems.  She has taken on part-time jobs and has worked overtime.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved five of the SOR allegations in Applicant’s favor.  For the remainder,
however, he entered adverse findings.  He stated that many of her debts are old, and the only ones
that had been resolved were those that were the subject of garnishment actions.  He concluded that
she had not initiated a good-faith effort to pay her debts, nor had she shown that her financial
situation is stable.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that she argues the Judge failed to consider.  This includes her
family’s illnesses, her efforts at debt resolution, the circumstances underlying her student loan debts,
etc.  The Judge made findings about much of this evidence and discussed it in his analysis. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  Neither is it sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26,
2016).  Applicant cites to the effect that an adverse decision will have on her finances.  We are not
permitted to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision upon an applicant.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2016).    
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.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed:  Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board