KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation
“because it was not asked of to provide any of that information.” and “[he] can provide that
information.” A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM,
accompanied by a DOHA cover letter. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could
submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider [.]” The FORM itself
advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation,
or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the
Directive and his failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to
inadequate notice of his right to do so. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07882.a1
DATE: 12/7/2017
DATE: December 7, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-07882
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 June 9, 2016, 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 October 6, 2017, after considering the record,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant
eligibility for a public trust position.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not file a
response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge based his adverse
decision in the case in large measure on the fact that the record contained no documentary evidence
supporting Applicant’s assertions that he filed his 2013-2014 Federal and state tax returns, or
otherwise describing arrangements or contacts he may have had with the IRS concerning his tax
issues.  Decision at 5.  On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement
describing his financial situation and the status of his tax issues.  The Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation
“because it was not asked of me to provide any of that information” and “[he] can provide that
information.”  A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM,
accompanied by a DOHA cover letter, in November 2016.  The cover letter in particular stated that
Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover
Letter, dated November 3, 2016.  The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set
forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly,
Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a response to
the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-05094 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).
Finally, Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact relating to the debt for a
medical bill alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b.  The Judge found in Applicant’s favor as to that allegation, so it
is not at issue on appeal.  
The Board does not review a case de novo.  Applicant has not established any harmful error
on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. 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