ISCR Case No. 19-01588.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F, Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant alleges the Judge erred regarding her finding that “Applicant claims to have resolved the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b ($749). Although she provides copies of two money orders receipts showing $400 payments, the receipts do not establish the payee.” Decision at 4. The Judge’s findings are a fair description of the copies of the money order in the record. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01588.a1 DATE: 06/03/2020 DATE: June 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-01588 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 June 21, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 4, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. The Judge found against Applicant on 23 Guideline F allegations and in favor of her on all of the Guideline E allegations. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant alleges the Judge erred regarding her finding that “Applicant claims to have resolved the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b ($749). Although she provides copies of two money orders receipts showing $400 payments, the receipts do not establish the payee.” Decision at 4. The Judge’s findings are a fair description of the copies of the money order in the record. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no other allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it describes the reasons for her financial problems and her efforts to resolve them. Her brief also contains a document and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant indicates that losing her job will have a negative impact on her financial situation. However, the impact of an unfavorable decision on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in determining his or her eligibility for a trustworthiness designation. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 17- 01760 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 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.

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