A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-08410.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 18, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a trustworthiness designation for an ADP I/II/III position but was denied due to concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision. The judges found no basis to reverse the prior ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in their appeal.
- The appeal board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is alleged.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline E Personal Conductapplied
- Guideline F Financial Considerationsapplied
- Guideline 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
- 2006-07-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-01-30 decided on written record
- Decision date
- 2007-09-18
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations of Appeal Board Authority
- Application of Multiple Disqualifying Conditions Under Guidelines E, F, and J
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 J; Guideline E DIGEST: Appeal Board authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-08410.a1 DATE: 09/18/2007 DATE: September 18, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-08410
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 July 10, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 3.a and 3.b. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal 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 30, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry 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 a request that the Board review Applicant’s complete file and reverse the Judge’s adverse determination. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board