KEYWORD: CAC Criminal and Dishonest Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, it contains new evidence, i.e., a document about Applicant’s probation that he
had not submitted to the Judge.  Under ¶ E3.1.29 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, the
Appeal Board may not receive or consider new evidence.  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.  Because Applicant has not made an
allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06228.a1
DATE: 12/22/2016
DATE: December 22, 2016
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for CAC Eligibility
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAC Case No. 15-06228
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 Common
Access Card (CAC) credentialing.  On November 17, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons
(SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–criminal and dishonest conduct concerns
raised under the adjudicative standards in the appendices of DoD Instruction 5200.46 (Sep. 9, 2014)
(Instruction).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On September 27, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for CAC eligibility.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Instruction, Enclosure 4 ¶ 6.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains new evidence, i.e., a document about Applicant’s probation that he had not
submitted to the Judge.  Under  ¶ E3.1.29 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992,
as amended), the Appeal Board may not receive or consider new evidence.   
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. 
Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision
of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom    
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2