A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-10888.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 6, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael D. Hipple · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought trustworthiness designation for an ADP I/II/III position but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline E and F. The appeal was based on new evidence but did not assert harmful error, leading to the affirmation of the denial by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in her appeal.
- The new evidence presented was not considered by the Appeal Board as it did not address harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ E.2 Personal Conductraised
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
- 2006-06-09
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-02-21
- Decision date
- 2007-08-06
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Claims
- Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Without Harmful Error Assertion
- Financial Considerations as a Basis for Trustworthiness Denial Under Guideline F
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 DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is to review cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-10888.a1 DATE: 08/06/2007 DATE: August 6, 2007 In Re: ---------- Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-10888
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 June 9, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 21, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant and documentary attachments. This evidence explains Applicant’s testimony at the hearing, confirms her payments of some outstanding debts, and explains her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board