CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11364.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11364.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11364.a1

deniedOct 3, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The denial was based on the applicant's ongoing financial management issues and outstanding debts, which raised Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was affirmed. The Board's review was limited because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original findings. Additionally, new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process was not considered.

Ultimately, the applicant's trustworthiness designation was denied, with the decision upheld on appeal due to the unaddressed financial concerns and the procedural limitations of the appeal.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had ongoing financial management issues and outstanding debts.
The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 22, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 17, 2007Decision issued by Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Decision dateOct 3, 2007Appeal affirmed by the DOHA Appeal Board

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Absence of Harmful Error Assertion in Appeal Process

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 DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo CASENO: 06-11364.a1 DATE: 10/03/2007 DATE: October 3, 2007 In Re: -------------- Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-11364

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 August 22, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that Applicant challenges a finding by the Judge which she perceives as saying she was dishonest. Guideline E (Personal Conduct) is not at issue in this case, and the finding is not discussed elsewhere in the Judge’s decision. decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On April 17, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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.1 Rather, it contains new evidence: (a) a statement from the Applicant explaining the circumstances relating to several of her outstanding debts, and her recent efforts to dispute or resolve them, and (b) a letter from Applicant’s former husband taking responsibility for their joint debts. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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