FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-11376.a1
DATE: 08/24/2007
DATE: August 24, 2007
In Re:
------
Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-11376
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 July 6, 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
Applicant asked that her case be decided upon the written record, and then did not respond to the
1
government’s file of relevant material (FORM).  In his decision, the Judge noted: “. . . my evaluation is necessarily
limited to the contents of the various documents that are found in the case file.”  Decision at 2.
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record.  On February
7, 2007, after considering the record,  Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s
request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains a statement by the Applicant explaining her ongoing efforts to resolve her
financial problems, and a request that the Board make a favorable trustworthiness determination in
Applicant’s case based upon her good character and job performance.   The Board cannot consider1
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. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  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 Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple             
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board