KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant notes one harmless factual error regarding a date. Applicant’s appeal brief
does not assert any other error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it contains a narrative statement
about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that constitute new evidence
that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01590.a1
DATE: 08/13/2018
DATE: August 13, 2018
In Re:
-------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No.17-01590
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 May 26, 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 decision on the written record.  On May 14, 2018, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The SOR alleged that Applicant owes approximately $28,000 in delinquent Federal taxes. 
He also owes about $7,900 on a car loan deficiency.  His financial troubles began when he became
unemployed for about nine months in 2003 and withdrew money from a retirement account without
planning for the tax consequences.   When the IRS began garnishing his pay in 2009,  he stopped
making the car payments and the car was repossessed.   In 2016, he hired a tax consultant to help
develop an installment agreement to address the tax deficiency.  An installment agreement was
submitted, but there is no evidence whether the IRS granted the request or he has been making
payments to resolve the tax deficiency.  The car loan deficiency remains outstanding.  Given the
record evidence, it was too soon to conclude that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved
or are under control.  
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that he hired the tax consultant in 2012, instead of 2016. 
The Judge’s finding about the date of the hiring of the tax consultant was a harmless error because
it likely did not affect the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00678 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jun. 13, 2014).   
Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert any other error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it
contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that
were not previously submitted to the Judge.  Those documents constitute new evidence that the
Appeal Board cannot consider.   Directive ¶ E3.1.1.29.  Applicant also provides a telephone number
for the Appeal Board to contact the IRS to confirm the status of tax liens.  The Appeal Board has
no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No 16-03072 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018).
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.’”  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7,
2017).  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: Charles C. Hale             
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3