KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant states that the Judge gave her time after the hearing to submit documents
corroborating her testimony about debt resolution and that she provided the documents, thereby
doing what the Judge asked of her.  She believes that it was improper for the Judge to have
denied her a trustworthiness designation.  A Judge has no authority to promise an applicant a
favorable result or to advise an applicant on the quantum of evidence that would mitigate the
concerns in his or her case. The Judge did give Applicant additional time to submit evidence. 
However, she said nothing that would have led a reasonable person to believe that submitting
such evidence would necessarily result in a favorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01017.a1
DATE: 11/18/2016
DATE: November 18, 2016
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-01017
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 August 1, 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 hearing.  On August 24, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness
designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is 23 years old.  She began her current job in 2014, before which she experienced
six months of unemployment.  She has financial problems that began when she was 20.  She 
suffered from various illnesses and did not have medical insurance to cover the treatments.  Her
SOR alleges over $39,000 in delinquent debts, all but one of which are for medical expenses.  All
of the medical debts are unresolved, including small ones for as little as $13.  
In addition to those debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant has other medical debts that have
become delinquent.  In May 2016, she met with a credit counseling service.  In 2015, her annual
salary was $22,500.  Her current monthly income is $1,400, but her monthly expenses are a little
over $1,800.  Post-hearing, she advised that she was going to file for bankruptcy protection.  She
had previously considered that course of action but decided against it. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant regarding the single non-medical debt, an automobile loan.  For
the remainder of the allegations, however, she entered adverse findings.  The Judge stated that
Applicant did not produce evidence to show that she engaged in responsible action in regard to her
debts, even the smaller ones.  She noted that Applicant did not seek credit counseling until after the
hearing.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt resolution.
Discussion
Applicant cites to favorable evidence, such as her effort at debt resolution and her decision
to file for bankruptcy.  She also notes that she has worked in her current job for two years without
incident or concern.  In making her argument, Applicant cites to matters from outside the record,
which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
2
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has she shown that the Judge mis-weighed
the evidence.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2015).
Applicant states that the Judge gave her additional time after the hearing to submit
documents corroborating her testimony about debt resolution.  Applicant states that she provided
the additional documents, thereby doing what the Judge asked of her.  She believes that it was
improper for the Judge to have denied her a trustworthiness designation.  A Judge has no authority
to promise an applicant a favorable result or to advise an applicant on the quantum of evidence that
would mitigate the concerns in his or her case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 3, Note 1
(App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015).  In the case before us, the Judge did indeed give Applicant additional time
to submit evidence.  However, she said nothing that would have led a reasonable person to believe
that submitting such evidence would necessarily result in a favorable decision.  We resolve this
assignment of error adversely to Applicant.
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: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
4