KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. 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.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04174.a1
DATE: 05/27/2016
DATE: May 27, 2016
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 14-04174
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust
position.  On October 3, 2014, DoD 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 decision on the written record.  On March 24, 2016, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant admitted without explanation twenty-five of the thirty factual allegations in the
SOR.  Twenty-three of the allegations she admitted to were for unpaid debts.  She requested that her
case be decided on the written record and then did not file a response to the government’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM).  On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative
statement describing her recollection of a 2013 discussion with an investigator regarding multiple
job layoffs over a ten-year period, as well as an assertion that seven of the twenty-eight SOR debts
are either duplicates or have been paid.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
The Board does not review a case de novo. 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. 
Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the
decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan         
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2