KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The board authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party
has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-23337.a1
DATE: 07/08/2008
DATE: July 8, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-23337
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) declined to grant Applicant a
trustworthiness designation.  On July 18, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising
Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F
Applicant’s brief states only that she “would like to appeal the Administrative Judge’s decision” and that
1
she is not represented by a lawyer.
2
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 26, 2008,
after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a
trustworthiness designation.  Applicant 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.   The1
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; Michael D. Hipple            
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                  
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board