KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not make a claim of harmful error by the Judge.  Accordingly, the Board
has no authority to review the case.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-09114.a1
DATE: 01/28/2009
DATE: January 28, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 07-09114
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 February 11, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On November 19, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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.
Applicant also states that loss of her case will have an adverse impact on her employment situation.  The1
adverse impact of a decision on an applicant is not a factor that can be considered in evaluating an applicant’s
trustworthiness eligibility.  Cf. ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005).
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of an explanatory statement and documentary exhibits,
which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that she has reduced her expenditures,
and has paid off or is attempting to resolve her outstanding debts.1
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Michael D. Hipple         
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
DATE: January 28, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 07-09114
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 February 11, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On November 19, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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.
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of an explanatory statement and documentary exhibits,
Applicant also states that loss of her case will have an adverse impact on her employment situation.  The2
adverse impact of a decision on an applicant is not a factor that can be considered in evaluating an applicant’s
trustworthiness eligibility.  Cf. ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005).
4
which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that she has reduced her expenditures,
and has paid off or is attempting to resolve her outstanding debts.2
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Michael D. Hipple         
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board