KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Based on the record that was before him, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant “has a
substantial and recurring financial problem that he has not resolved and cannot with his available
resources” and “[i]t is highly likely his financial difficulties will continue for some time” is
sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06160.a1
DATE: 07/18/2017
DATE: July 18, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-06160
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 5, 2016, DOHA 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 April 26,  2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness
designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because he paid off
both of the SOR debts and proof was submitted.  In support of his argument he states that the reason
he waited eight months after the issuance of the SOR to withdraw money from his retirement
account to pay off the debts was so that he could accrue interest on the account before paying the
amounts owed.  His argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious
or contrary to law.
  
The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable trustworthiness determination.  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. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017).
In reaching his adverse decision, the Judge specifically found that Applicant had paid both
of the debts listed in the SOR.  Decision at 5-6.  However, in evaluating Applicant’s case in
mitigation, he also noted that Applicant “lives from paycheck to paycheck,” “spends more than he
earns monthly,” and “is currently seeking a second job with which to earn sufficient funds to pay
his delinquent debts not listed in the SOR.”  Id. at 2-3, 6.  Based on the record that was before him,
the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant “has a substantial and recurring financial problem that he has
not resolved and cannot with his available resources” and “[i]t is highly likely his financial
difficulties will continue for some time” is sustainable.  Id. at 6; see, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02930
at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 9, 2015)(Even if an applicant has actually paid his debts, a Judge may still
consider the circumstance underlying the debts for what they may reveal about the applicant’s
clearance eligibility).
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g.,
ADP Case No. 16-01251 supra.   After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  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 interest of national security’.”  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 supra.  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 F. Duffy       
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board