KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argues that she has not breached her position of trust, has not been
disciplined in her current job, and is not someone who can be blackmailed. The presence of some
mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable trustworthiness
decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02086.a1
DATE: 05/25/2017
DATE: May 25, 2017     
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-02086
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 10, 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 April 6, 2017, after considering the record, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis  
Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a Federal contractor.  She is divorced and
experienced periods of unemployment.  The SOR alleges, in part, that she has five delinquent
student loans.  She asserted that she had an arrangement to pay $134 per month on those loans.  She
provided one receipt showing a $134 payment in 2015 and reflecting a total balance of over
$150,000.  She presented no other evidence of payments on the student loans.  
Applicant asserted four other debts have been settled with zero balance.  She provided proof
of payment on one debt, but provided no documentation substantiating the other delinquent accounts
were settled.  
In her security clearance application, Applicant disclosed that she was involved in an
automobile accident and a settlement was pending that would be used to resolve delinquent medical
debts.  Although she received the settlement years ago, the medical debts still are not resolved.  
The Judge’s Analysis  
Many of the delinquent debts are over five years old.  She provided documentation showing
one payment on her student loans, proof of paying another debt, and scribbling in the margin of a
collection letter that may be indicative of a payment on a third debt.  She produced no other
documentation showing payments or progress on the alleged debts.  While her divorce, periods of
unemployment, and automobile accident are arguably conditions beyond her control, she has not
acted responsibly under the circumstances.  She provided no evidence of counseling, good-faith
efforts to repay creditors, or that her financial problems are being resolved or under control.
Discussion
In the appeal brief, Applicant states that she has a repayment plan in which she pays $5 per
month on the student loans and that they are out of default.  She also provided an explanation for
why she did not use her automobile accident settlement to pay the medical debts.  This information
was not previously presented to the Judge and constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board may
not consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant requests a temporary stay so she can locate creditors and take care of the debts. 
The Appeal Board does not have authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary
trustworthiness determination.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-00700 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014).
Applicant argues that she has not breached her position of trust, has not been disciplined in
her current job, and is not someone who can be blackmailed.  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. 15-01270 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun.
16, 2016). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  The standard applicable to trustworthiness
cases is that 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. 15-01270, supra,  at 2.  See also
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, 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