CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00043.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00043.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00043.a1

deniedSep 26, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board's decision was based on the applicant's failure to allege any harmful error by the original judge in her appeal. The Board's review process is specifically limited to addressing such allegations, which were absent in this case.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines was warranted. Consequently, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the initial denial, upholding the decision to deny the applicant's request for a trustworthiness designation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge in her appeal.
The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not presented.
The applicant failed to establish that an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines was merited.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 15, 2019Decision on the written record.
Decision dateSep 26, 2019

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Error Allegations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it describes the reasons for her financial problems and her efforts to resolve them. She also requests the Appeal Board grant her a probationary period so that she can show her dedication in turning her negative financial situation into a more positive one. Applicant, however, has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines is merited. The Board does not review cases 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 19-00043.a1 DATE: 09/26/2019 DATE: September 26, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-00043 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 a trustworthiness designation. On January 30, 2019, 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 July 15, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it describes the reasons for her financial problems and her efforts to resolve them. She also requests the Appeal Board grant her a probationary period so that she can show her dedication in turning her negative financial situation into a more positive one. Applicant, however, has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines is merited.

The Board does not review cases 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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is affirmed.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board