CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-08843 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-08843denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-08843

deniedMar 8, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness determination under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for access to automated information systems. The Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the Judge.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions raised under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20. The Board could not consider new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process, as its review is limited to the record established at the initial hearing.

Consequently, due to the lack of asserted harmful error and the submission of inadmissible new evidence, the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful, and her access was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error on the part of the Judge.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 30, 2006
Decision dateMar 8, 2007

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
Upholding Adverse Decisions Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-08843 DATE: 03/08/2007 DATE: March 8, 2007 In Re: -------- SSN: ------ Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 05-08843

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke access to automated information systems in ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions for Applicant. On December 2, 2005, DOHA 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 hearing. On August 30, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely 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, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant, which indicates that she is in the process of selling personal property in order to pay off her debts, and will provide confirming documentation once the transaction is completed. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant access to automated information systems in ADP I/II/II sensitivity positions is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board