CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-08085.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-08085.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-08085.a1

deniedAug 9, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness determination due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The initial decision to deny was made by a judge, citing disqualifying conditions related to these guidelines.

The applicant subsequently appealed this decision. However, the appeal was denied because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original ruling. The Appeal Board's review process is strictly limited to addressing allegations of harmful error, and since no such allegations were presented, the Board affirmed the judge's decision.

Consequently, the applicant's request for a trustworthiness determination was ultimately denied.

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 EappliedPersonal Conduct
AG FappliedFinancial Considerations
AG JappliedCriminal Conduct

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 issuedMay 18, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 29, 2007Applicant requested decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 9, 2007

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

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

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

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 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