CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-10888.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-10888.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-10888.a1

deniedAug 6, 2007· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation for an ADP I/II/III position. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ F.1 and AG ¶ E.2.

The applicant appealed the decision, presenting new evidence. However, the appeal did not assert that harmful error occurred in the initial decision-making process. Consequently, the Appeal Board did not consider the new evidence, as it did not address the lack of an asserted harmful error.

Due to the absence of an assertion of harmful error in the appeal, the Appeal Board affirmed the original denial. The applicant's trustworthiness designation was therefore denied.

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.1raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ E.2raisedPersonal 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 issuedJun 9, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 21, 2007
Decision dateAug 6, 2007

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

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 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

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 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