FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo
CASENO: 06-11364.a1
DATE: 10/03/2007
DATE: October 3, 2007
In Re:
--------------
Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-11364
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 22,
2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
Applicant challenges a finding by the Judge which she perceives as saying she was dishonest.  Guideline E1
(Personal Conduct) is not at issue in this case, and the finding is not discussed elsewhere in the Judge’s decision.
2
decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On April 17, 2007, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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.1
Rather, it contains new evidence: (a) a statement from the Applicant explaining the circumstances
relating to several of her outstanding debts, and her recent efforts to dispute or resolve them, and
(b) a letter from Applicant’s former husband taking responsibility for their joint debts.  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 Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board