KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) does
contain a document from a credit reporting agency that reflects a number of the alleged debts
were “Currently Under Dispute.”  We also note that Applicant’s response to the SOR includes a
document that appears to reflect the student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.I were not in a
delinquent status.  Therefore, documents in Applicant’s SOR and FORM responses show the
Judge erred in his findings about the absence of supporting documentation.  Given those errors,
we believe the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the errors
and issuance of a new decision in accordance with the Directive. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 17-03763.a1
DATE: 12/14/2018
DATE: December 14, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 17-03763
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 November 20, 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 September 20, 2018, after considering the record,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 remand.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
The SOR alleged that Applicant has 18 delinquent debts totaling over $37,000.  She has been
employed by a Federal contractor since 2016.  In the past, she experienced periods of
unemployment, including two periods after she left jobs by mutual agreement and a third period after
she was fired for tardiness and absenteeism.  She has never been married and has no children.  She
admitted all the debts, stated some were either paid, in payment plans, or in negotiations for
settlements, but provided no documentary evidence of payments, payment plans, disputes, or other
resolutions.  She also provided no evidence regarding her income and expenses.  She did provide
documentation showing two non-alleged student loans were current.  In his Analysis, the Judge
concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were established, noting the absence of evidence
of debt resolution.  
Discussion
In her appeal brief, Applicant argues that she was unable to receive financial counseling
under Mitigating Condition 20(c).1  She also states that she is in the process of establishing
repayment plans for her debts.  These statements constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is
prohibited from considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant also requests guidance on ways she
could demonstrate her trustworthiness in financial matters.  The Appeal Board cannot advise her
about what action or actions she can or should take.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-01578 at 4 (App.
Bd. May 27, 2004). 
 
In her brief, Applicant further states that she provided court documents showing she was in
the process of disputing some of her overdue bills.  The record does not contain any court documents
1 Directive, Encl 2, App. A ¶ 20(c) states, “the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for
the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”
2
establishing disputes.2  However, Applicant’s response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM) does contain a document from a credit reporting agency that reflects a number of
the alleged debts were “Currently Under Dispute.”  Applicant’s Exhibit (AX) A.  We also note that
Applicant’s response to the SOR includes a document dated January 25, 2018, that appears to reflect
the student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.i were not in a delinquent status.  Therefore,
documents in Applicant’s SOR and FORM responses show the Judge erred in his findings about the
absence of supporting documentation.  Given those errors, we believe the best course of action is
to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the errors and issuance of a new decision in
accordance with the Directive. 
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.  
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: James F. Duffy           
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2 In her brief, Applicant also contends that she provided billing statement that show a decrease in her total debt. 
We cannot discern what billing statements Applicant is referencing. 
3