A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-08085.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 9, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness determination but was denied based on concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision, leading to the affirmation of the denial by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
- The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not presented by the applicant.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG E Personal Conductapplied
- AG F Financial Considerationsapplied
- AG J Criminal Conductapplied
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 issued
- 2006-05-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-01-29 Applicant requested decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2007-08-09
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Application of Multiple Disqualifying Conditions Under Trustworthiness Guidelines
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
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-08085.a1 DATE: 08/09/2007 DATE: August 9, 2007 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-08085
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 May 18, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On January 29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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, Applicant summarizes the evidence presented below, and requests that the Board reconsider her case based on her commitment to her job and her overall job performance during her 17 years of service to her company. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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