KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08174.a1
DATE: 12/5/2017
DATE: December 5, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 15-08174
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 June 13, 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 August 25, 2017, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. 
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, Applicant asks that the Board reconsider her case and presents new evidence in the form of
a narrative statement and supporting documentation.  In the narrative statement, Applicant indicates
that her payment arrangements with the IRS to satisfy her tax indebtedness have been kept current,
that she has disputed two of her non-tax debts and they have now been removed from her credit
reports, and that she has satisfied two other non-tax debts.  The Judge had found in Applicant’s favor
with respect to the two satisfied debts, so they are not at issue on appeal.  Applicant’s attached
documentation includes correspondence and credit reports that post-date the Judge’s decision in her
case.  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 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