CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11376.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11376.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11376.a1

deniedAug 24, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to unresolved financial issues and personal conduct concerns. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15, falling under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), respectively.

Specifically, the applicant had outstanding financial obligations that had not been resolved, leading to the Guideline F concerns. Additionally, issues related to the applicant's personal conduct were identified under Guideline E.

The applicant appealed the denial, but the appeal board affirmed the original decision. The board noted that the applicant did not claim any harmful error by the judge, which limited their review to the existing record. Consequently, the denial of the trustworthiness designation was upheld.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had unresolved financial issues under Guideline F.
The applicant exhibited personal conduct concerns under Guideline E.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 6, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldFeb 7, 2007Decision made by Administrative Judge.
Decision dateAug 24, 2007Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Limitations of Appeal Board Review to Existing Record Without Allegations of Harmful Error

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 Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11376.a1 DATE: 08/24/2007 DATE: August 24, 2007 In Re: ------ Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-11376

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 July 6, 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 Applicant asked that her case be decided upon the written record, and then did not respond to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM). In his decision, the Judge noted: “. . . my evaluation is necessarily limited to the contents of the various documents that are found in the case file.” Decision at 2. 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 February 7, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 a statement by the Applicant explaining her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems, and a request that the Board make a favorable trustworthiness determination in Applicant’s case based upon her good character and job performance. 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. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board