KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant states that she did not understand that she could “file an objection” to
matters in the FORM and did not understand that she “needed to send in new information.”  
Both the FORM and its cover letter advised her that she had 30 days from its receipt to file
objections or submit additional matters.  She was also advised that, if she did not file objections
or submit additional matters, her case would be assigned to a Judge “for a determination based
solely on this file of relevant material.”  Similar language was also contained in the cover letter. 
Applicant was properly advised of her rights to object to matters in the FORM and her
opportunity to submit additional matters to the Judge.  She forfeited those rights by not
submitting a response to the FORM.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00329.a1
DATE: 12/14/2018
DATE: December 14, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 18-00329
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 February 23, 2018, 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 21, 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 affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 21 delinquent debts.  These include a state tax lien for
over $13,000, a judgment for about $9,000, a cellphone collection account for about $1,300, medical
bills and other debts in various amounts.  She has been divorced twice, made moves to different
locations including some with her second husband who served in the military, and experienced
periods of unemployment.  
Applicant provided proof that the state tax lien was paid in full.  This debt was not from a
state taxing authority but from another state agency.  She stated that she made monthly payments
between $400 to $500 on this debt.  
The judgment is not resolved.  Applicant claimed the cellphone collection account is
fraudulent and provided a reference number for her claim.  The Judge noted that the reference
number was not sufficient to support her claim and that he was not authorized under the Directive
to investigate her claim.  Her other alleged debts are unresolved.  The dates of last activity for eight
of her alleged medical debts were in 2013 or 2014.  She provided proof of one $100 payment toward
a medical debt.  
The Judge’s Analysis
While Applicant experienced some conditions beyond her control, “[s]he has not established
that the uninsured medical expenses were a condition beyond her control.  She took no significant
actions to resolve her medical debts until she realized that her job was in jeopardy and she provided
evidence of only one $100 payment that she made after receiving the SOR.”  Decision at 6.  
Because Applicant requested a decision on the written record, the Judge noted he had no opportunity
to evaluate her credibility based on her demeanor.  The trustworthiness concerns raised by her
delinquent debt remain unmitigated.  
2
Discussion
Applicant contends the Judge erred in concluding that she did not start paying on her medical
bills until her security clearance was in jeopardy.  She argues that she had been paying all of her
extra money towards the state debt and started making payments on her medical debts once the state
debt was resolved.  We note Applicant provided the Judge with a Satisfaction of Warrant showing
the state debt was paid the day after the SOR was issued.  File of Relevant Material (FORM) Item
2.  In her security clearance application, she stated that she was paying $400 to $500 monthly on the
state debt (FORM Item 3), but did not provide any documentation to corroborate that she was
consistently making payments of that nature.  From our review of the record, the Judge’s material
findings and conclusions of security concern are based upon substantial evidence or constitute
reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.  Applicant has cited to no harmful
error in the Judge’s findings or conclusions.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul.
25, 2014).
In citing to the Judge’s comment that he could not evaluate her credibility and demeanor
because she chose a decision based on the written record, Applicant states that no one explained that
consequence to her and argues that someone should be available to answer questions and stress how
important it is to request a hearing.  Applicant’s contention merits no relief.  Applicant was properly
advised of her right to have a hearing.  DOHA personnel have no authority to provide advice to
applicants concerning what rights they should exercise and should refrain from going beyond the
language of the Directive and, if applicable, the current Prehearing Guidance in their interactions
with applicants.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-01542 at 4, n.1 (App. Bd. May 12, 2015).    
Applicant also states that she did not understand that she could “file an objection” to matters
in the FORM and did not understand that she “needed to send in new information.”  Appeal Brief
at 1. Applicant received a copy of the FORM on June 13, 2018.  Both the FORM and its cover letter
advised her that she had 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters.  She
was also advised that, if she did not file objections or submit additional matters, her case would be
assigned to a Judge “for a determination based solely on this file of relevant material.” [Emphasis
added.]  FORM at 3.  Similar language was also contained in the cover letter.  Applicant was
properly advised of her rights to object to matters in the FORM and her opportunity to submit
additional matters to the Judge.  She forfeited those rights by not submitting a response to the
FORM.  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence.  Those arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence
in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at
2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017).
Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error.  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:
3
such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the
national security.’”   ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2.  See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148
(Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.
4
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: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
5