KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-02400.a1
DATE: 09/12/2016
DATE: September 12, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-02400
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 21, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On June 21, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 considered all of the
evidence in the record and whether the Judge erred in finding that Applicant’s omissions from his
clearance application (SCA) were deliberate.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR alleges five delinquent debts, for such things as a judgment against him
(over $21,000), a telecommunications account, a medical debt, a DVD subscription, and a collection
account.  Applicant provided no documentation to show what action, if any, he had taken to resolve
these debts.  Neither did he submit evidence of financial counseling, a budget, his income and
expenses, etc.  When completing his SCA, Applicant failed to disclose the judgment or the other
delinquent debts.  Applicant provided no evidence regarding his good character, work performance,
or track record for handling sensitive information. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to an absence of mitigating evidence about Applicant’s debts.  She stated
that he presented little in the way of a track record of debt resolution, nor did he show that he had
received financial counseling.  Regarding Guideline E, the Judge stated that Applicant clearly knew
about the judgment and other delinquent accounts, finding that his omissions were deliberate.  She
held that Applicant had failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his debts and omissions.
Discussion
Applicant cites to his evidence of debt resolution.  He has failed to rebut the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.   See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541 at 3 (App.
Bd. Aug. 3, 2015).  He states that he has performed his duties for many years without any question
as to his integrity.  However, an applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in
conduct that has negative trustworthiness implications.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-07290 at 2
(App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2009).   
Applicant states that he admitted during his clearance interview that he had answered the
financial questions erroneously.  To the extent that he is claiming that his omissions were not
deliberate, we note first of all that, in his Answer to the SOR, he responded “I admit” to the
Guideline E allegation that he had “deliberately failed to disclose any of [his] delinquent debts[.]”
Item 2, SOR Answer, at 2.  By itself this admission is sufficient to support the Judge’s finding.  
In addition, we note the following from Applicant’s clearance interview:  he stated he
received documents pertaining to the judgment two years before his interview, which was in 2014. 
Item 6, Clearance Interview Summary, at 2, 4.  Therefore, he would have received these documents
sometime in 2012.  He completed his SCA in August 2014. Item 3, SCA, at 29.  By his own
admission Applicant had been aware of the largest of his SOR debts at the time that he completed
his SCA.  He told the interviewer that he had failed to list any of his debts due to “oversight.”  Item
6 at 5-6.  Although this is evidence that the Judge was required to consider, along with all the other
evidence in the record, it is not sufficient to undermine her finding that Applicant had deliberately
falsified his SCA.  The challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of
all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; See also ADP Case No. 08-
10098 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2012).   
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