KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argues that the Judge did not give him time to effectuate his plan.  However,
in 2015 Applicant committed to resolve his delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01530.a1
DATE: 06/06/2018
DATE: June 6, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
 
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 17-01530
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 June 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 6, 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 adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts, including $21,000 deficiency resulting
from the repossession sale of a vehicle.  Other debts, for accounts that have been charged off or are
in collection, are for lesser amounts, generally a few hundred dollars.  By the close of the record,
Applicant had resolved only two of the SOR debts, valued at $288 and $130 respectively.  Applicant
testified that he is working on resolving them, although he does not have extra income that could
be used for this purpose.  In 2015, he advised his clearance investigator that he intended to contact
his creditors and make payment arrangements.  He also stated that he is current on all his monthly
expenses.  He bought automobiles in 2016 and 2017, with monthly payments of nearly $600 and
nearly $900.  Applicant attributes his financial problems to his inability to work in January 2014,
due to knee surgery and to his wife’s unemployment for the two years preceding mid-2017.
   Applicant has not shown responsible action in regard to his debts, despite the presence of
circumstances beyond his control that affected his financial condition.  The Judge noted his
assurance to the interviewer that he would begin resolving his debts yet failed to follow through. 
Applicant did not provide evidence that would support his denial of certain debts.  She stated that
Applicant has been fully employed since late 2014 but has not addressed his financial delinquencies.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes evidence from outside the record, including documents that post-
date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant argues that the Judge did not give him time to effectuate his plan.  However, in 2015
Applicant committed to resolve his delinquent debts. The balance of Applicant’s argument is a
challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   See, e.g., ADP
Case No. 12-09387 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).
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
2
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. 12-04343 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). 
See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.
3
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: Charles C. Hale                 
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4