KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A credit report, in and of itself, may not be sufficient to meet an applicant’s burden of
persuasion as to mitigation.  The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not
establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt.  Debts may fall
off credit reports merely due to the passage of time. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00586.a1
DATE: 04/27/2018
DATE: April 27, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 17-00586
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Patrick Cox, Personal Representative
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. 
On May 16, 2017, 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 February 5, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 Finding of Fact
Applicant, who is 37 year old, has worked for his current employer since 2011.  He served
in the military from 1999 to 2003.  He has two children from his first marriage.  He has one child
and two stepchildren from his current marriage.  His wife does not work outside the home.  The SOR
alleged that Applicant had three delinquent debts totaling about $15,000, including a student loan
over $13,000.  In responding to the SOR, he admitted each of those debts. 
From 2003 to 2005, Applicant attended college using the GI Bill and student loans.  He
testified that he was not making much money when his student loans became due and did not pay
them.  “He stated, ‘Student loans, in my opinion, were a bill that was always going to be there, so
I never prioritized those.’”   Decision at 2.  He determined it was not necessary to pay them because
they would neither be discharged in bankruptcy nor removed from his credit report.  In the past, he
received collection notices and arranged payment plans, but defaulted on those plans.  In his 2015
security clearance application, he disclosed that his wages were being garnished for past-due student
loans, but also indicated he had another past-due student loan that was not subject to the
garnishment.  In January 2017, he contacted the creditor of the student loan in SOR ¶ 1.a because
he was unable to obtain a mortgage loan due to that delinquent student loan and other negative
information on his credit report.  His student loan was placed in a deferment status and an income-
based payment plan was arranged.  Under that payment plan, he is to make monthly payments of
$155 starting in March 2018.  This debt was unresolved.
            Applicant provided documentation that he paid a communications provider’s debt (SOR ¶
1.b) in May 2017 that had been delinquent since 2014.  In background interviews in 2011 and 2015,
he was confronted about another debt (SOR ¶ 1.c) that he was unable to identify, but he admitted
this debt in responding to the SOR.  He testified that he paid it in early 2017; however, he did not
provide documentary proof of its resolution other than it no longer appears on a recent credit report. 
In a post-hearing email, he stated the debt was purchased by another creditor and its collection
agency had no record of it.  The debt in SOR ¶ 1.c was unresolved.   
2
Applicant attributed his financial problems to his first marriage when things involving his
finances occurred without his knowledge.  In 2017, he purchased a house, a used car, and a
motorcycle.  He has not received financial counseling.                                                                     
            
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances.  He failed to take action on his
student loan until he wanted to obtain a mortgage loan.  He also failed to take timely action on the
two other debts.  One of those debts was paid when he attempted to secure the mortgage and the
other, which dates back to 2010, cannot be found by the creditor.  After noting he disregarded his
legal obligations and failed to follow through on his promises, the Judge indicated that she was
unable to conclude his financial problems are unlikely to recur and that his behavior casts doubt on
his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  The Judge found against Applicant on
the three alleged debts.
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant argues that he is in good standing with all of his creditors.  He
asserts that a credit report reflects that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c were satisfied as of January
2017.  We note, however, that he did not identify any record evidence that specifically challenges
the Judge’s findings that the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b was paid in May 2017 and the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c is
not reflected on his recent credit report.  He also contends that his student loans have been in good
standing since 2017, that he setup a monthly payment plan that was to begin in March 2018, and that
he would make automatic payments towards that plan until the students loans were satisfied.  We
do not find those arguments persuasive.
We note that a credit report, in and of itself, may not be sufficient to meet an applicant’s
burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does
not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt.  See, e.g., ADP
Case No. 14-02206 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 15, 2015) and ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug.
25, 2015).  Debts may fall off credit reports merely due to the passage of time.  See, e.g., ADP Case
No. 07-13041 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008). Moreover, although Applicant has established that he
setup a repayment plan for his student loans and that he paid one of the debts, the Judge may still
consider the circumstances underlying those debts for what they may reveal about his worthiness
for a clearance.  See, e.g., ADP 14-02206, supra, at 2-3.  In this case, the Judge adverse decision is
largely based on her determination that Applicant failed to act responsibly under the circumstances
by repeatedly ignoring his obligations to repay his debts.  We find no reason to disturb the Judge’s
findings or conclusions.  
We also note that Applicant’s arguments about the resolution of his debts and the Judge’s
whole-person assessment amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  A
party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or the 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 was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP
3
Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017).  Applicant further argues that the Judge based her
decision only on the three debts alleged in the SOR.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Id.
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 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.
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: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4