A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-08843
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 8, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness determination under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The Board upheld the denial of access to automated information systems, noting that the applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error and included new evidence that could not be considered.
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 ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2005-12-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-08-30
- Decision date
- 2007-03-08
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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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