CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-07827.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-07827.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-07827.a1

deniedJul 20, 2007· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position, but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Specifically, Disqualifying Condition F.1 was raised, while Mitigating Condition F.2 was applied.

The applicant appealed the decision, presenting new evidence of improved financial management. However, the Board was unable to consider this new evidence during the appeal process. Additionally, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial of the trustworthiness designation. The outcome remained DENIED, as the new evidence could not be considered and no harmful error was asserted.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's new evidence of budgeting and debt repayment was not considered on appeal.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 2, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldJan 31, 2007Decision made by Judge Joan Caton Anthony.
Decision dateJul 20, 2007Appeal affirmed by the Board.

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion

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: 06-07827.a1 DATE: 07/20/2007 DATE: July 20, 2007 In Re: ------- SSN: ------- Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-07827

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 August 2, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On January 31, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraph 1.f. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence which establishes that Applicant has been budgeting her income and has paid off four of her outstanding debts while the decision in her case was pending. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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