A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-11364.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 3, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's findings, and new evidence presented was not considered on 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.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-04-17 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski
- Decision date
- 2007-10-03 Appeal 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
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 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
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