KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: We conclude, however, the Judge’s material findings about those documents “are
supported by 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.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00110.a1
DATE: 03/13/2018
DATE: March 13, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 17-00110
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 21, 2017, 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 December 19,
2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Pamela C. Benson 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 SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $22,000 and she
failed to disclose information about her delinquent debts in her 2015 security clearance application
(SCA).  Applicant paid one small debt and provided documentation showing two court cases against
her were dismissed without providing any further information to show the underlying debts were
resolved.  For the remaining debts, she did not provide documentation showing any progress towards
their resolution or establishing a basis to dispute them.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on
the paid debt and against her on the other SOR allegations.    
In her appeal brief, Applicant claimed Department Counsel’s representations about
documents she submitted are untrue or inaccurate.  We conclude, however, the Judge’s material
findings about those documents “are supported by 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.  Applicant also contends there is inaccurate information in her
credit reports, including duplicate entries for debts, but she failed to show that any of those
inaccuracies resulted in any harmful error in the Judge’s findings or conclusions.   The balance of
Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which
is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary,
capricious, and contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017).  
Regarding the falsification allegation, the Judge noted that Applicant had two associate’s
degrees and a bachelor’s degree.  The Judge concluded that it was not credible that Applicant
misread several questions in her SCA and pointed out that legal action involving some of the debts
occurred at, or near, the time she submitted her SCA.  In her appeal brief, Applicant raised no
allegations of error concerning the Judge’s adverse falsification finding.  We note the Judge’s
unfavorable security clearance determination is independently sustainable under Guideline E.
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.’”   Id. at 2.  See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed.
Cir. 2013), cert. denied.
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan   
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields   
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy     
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3