KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The non-appealing party filed a motion for expedited remand.  The appealing party did
not object.  For reasons of economy the case is remanded for further processing.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-15770.a1
DATE: 03/26/2007
DATE: March 26, 2007
In Re:
----------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-15770
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke access to
automated information systems in ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions for Applicant.  On August 22,
2006, DOHA 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
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record.  On February
28, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s
request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On March 21, 2007, Department Counsel filed a Motion for Expedited Remand.  On March
23, 2007, Applicant filed a response to the government’s motion stating that she had no objection.
  Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case is hereby remanded to the
Judge for further processing.  Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the
parties.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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