A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-07827.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 20, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael D. Hipple · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position, facing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was based on new evidence of improved financial management, which was not considered by the Board, leading to the affirmation of the denial of the trustworthiness designation.
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.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-02
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-01-31 Decision made by Judge Joan Caton Anthony.
- Decision date
- 2007-07-20 Appeal 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
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: 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
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