ISCR Case No. 14-02668.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant cites to her efforts at debt repayment. Her argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. CASENO: 14-02668.a1 DATE: 05/27/2016 DATE: May 27, 2016 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-02668

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 October 14, 2014, 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 March 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence and whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2010. Her SOR lists overdue debts totaling about $32,000, for various accounts that have been charged off, placed in collection status, etc. In her response to the SOR, Applicant stated that, once her divorce is finalized, she will be responsible for only one-half of many of the debts. In a second SOR response Applicant stated that she is separated from her husband and is starting to make payment arrangements with her creditors. She did not provide more detailed information about these plans. Applicant has a total monthly remainder of $103 after payment of her bills. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant had provided no independent evidence to show that she was resolving, or had reduced, her delinquent debts. He stated that he could not conclude that Applicant had acted responsibly regarding her financial problems.

Applicant cites to her efforts at debt repayment. Her argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2015). Applicant’s brief contains new evidence, which we cannot consider. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541, supra. 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 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.

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; Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board