FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-17302.a1
DATE: 07/25/2007
DATE: July 25, 2007
In Re:
---------
---------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-17302
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief 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 15,
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
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E, and with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a-1.u and
1
1.w-1.cc.  Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 22, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant and a document not
previously submitted by the Applicant.  This evidence indicates that Applicant has now resolved her
sole outstanding debt, and attests to her good character and job performance.  The Board cannot
consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party
has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  It does not review cases de novo.  Applicant has not
made an allegation of harmful error.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a
trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple           
Michael D. Hipple
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