KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07064.a1
DATE: 10/4/2017
DATE: October 4, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-07064
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 a trustworthiness desigation. 
On June 29, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (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 July 18, 2017, after the hearing, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s
request for a trustworthiness designation.  Applicant appealed pursuant to 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 a narrative statement describing her professional qualifications, explaining that
she should have paid more attention to her credit reports to verify delinquencies,1 and indicating that
she provided documentation that set forth her objectives in settling her financial delinquencies.  She
also forwarded some documents that she previously submitted to the Judge for consideration.
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: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy     
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1 To the extent this statement could be interpreted as a challenge to the Judge’s adverse findings under Guideline
E, we note that the Judge analyzed Applicant’s statements to this affect at the hearing, and we see no reason to distribute
the Judge’s conclusions.