CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-04923.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-04923.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-04923.a1

deniedMay 9, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The administrative judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, stemming from numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,258.

The applicant's claims of having paid some debts and her denials of others were found to be uncorroborated by evidence. Crucially, the applicant had not taken any verifiable action to resolve these outstanding financial obligations.

Given the lack of corroboration for her claims and her inaction in addressing the $13,258 in delinquent debts, the administrative judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the trustworthiness concerns. Consequently, the application was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,258.
The applicant's claims of payment and denial of certain debts were found uncorroborated.
The applicant had not taken any action to resolve her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her financial issues. Her promise to pay her debts in the future is not sufficient to mitigate.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 23, 2008Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateMay 9, 2008Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Insufficient Action to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding Debts
Limitations on Considering New Evidence During Appeals

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge stated that Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her financial issues and her promise to pay is not sufficient to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-04923.a1 DATE: 05/09/2008 DATE: May 9, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 07-04923

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On August 31, 2007, DOHA 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 January 23, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Board construes Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, totaling $13,258, for such things as credit card accounts, medical bills, and unpaid traffic tickets. Applicant denied owing certain of the debts, though the Judge found that her denials were not corroborated. Applicant had not consulted with a credit counseling service. The Judge considered various mitigating conditions but concluded that none were sufficient to justify granting a trustworthiness designation. In his whole person analysis the Judge stated that “Applicant has not taken any action to resolve her financial issues. Her promise to pay her debts in the future is not sufficient to mitigate” the trustworthiness concerns raised by her financial problems. Decision at 6. Examining Applicant’s appeal in light of the record as a whole, the Board concludes that the Judge has articulated “a satisfactory explanation for [his] conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found” and his adverse trustworthiness determination. See ADP Case No. 06-12901 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2007). Applicant has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal. The Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board