KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings of fact. Among other things, he cites to
evidence that he is currently married, and he argues that the record shows that he has in fact
resolved the medical payments. After reviewing the Decision in light of the record as a whole,
we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial
evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03800.a1
DATE: 07/05/2017
DATE: July 5, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-03800
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 December 3, 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 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas 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’s findings of fact
contained errors and 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
Never married, Applicant is a high school graduate with some college credits.  He has
worked at his current job since 2012.  His SOR lists several delinquent debts totaling a little over
$18,000.  Applicant’s answer to the SOR included a copy of a February 2016 credit report that did
not show any of the SOR debts.  Applicant’s financial problems began when he was terminated from
employment in January 2008 for disciplinary reasons.  He remained unemployed until August 2009,
during which time he relied on unemployment compensation, which was not enough to meet routine
expenses.  He had another year of unemployment, which ended in 2012.  Applicant admitted that
he has not made payments on his collection accounts since 2008.
Applicant’s SOR contains four medical accounts that resulted from emergency room
treatment of a dog bite.  The incident occurred at his parent’s home, but they failed to follow through
on their promise to pay for Applicant’s treatment.  Applicant provided details of his unsuccessful
efforts to track down the creditors currently holding these debts.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s problems were rooted in a job loss due to
disciplinary problems, which was a circumstance that was within his control.  He stated that there
are no clear indications that Applicant’s problems are being resolved or are under control, nor is
there evidence of any good-faith efforts to resolve the debts at issue here.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings of fact.  Among other things, he cites to evidence
that he is currently married,1 and he argues that the record shows that he has in fact resolved the
medical payments.  After reviewing the Decision in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that
the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial evidence or constitute
reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.  Applicant has cited to no harmful
error in the Judge’s findings.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 15-03377 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017).  
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
1Applicant’s application, dated May 26, 2013, states that he has never been married.  Item 2 at 23.  However,
his Response to the SOR includes a reference to his “fiancée (now wife).”      
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 Ra’anan             
Michael 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