KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline e
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-25938.a1
DATE: 02/15/2008
DATE: February 15, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-25938
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 February 28,
2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E.  That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.
1
2
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 18, 2007, after the hearing,  Administrative
Judge Philip S. Howe 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.  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.  Because Applicant has not
made an allegation of harmful error, 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: Jean E. Smallin       
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields      
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board