CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11767.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11767.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11767.a1

deniedOct 1, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The judges affirmed this denial, noting that the applicant, who represented herself, had ample opportunity to present all relevant information during the initial determination process.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to assert harmful error in her appeal. Furthermore, new evidence submitted by the applicant after the initial decision was not considered by the judges, as it was not part of the original record.

Ultimately, the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the denial of her trustworthiness designation was upheld.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in her appeal.
New evidence submitted after the decision was not considered by the judges.
The applicant had opportunities to present all relevant information during the initial determination process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Information submitted by an applicant after the Judge has reached a decision is not a basis for error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 30, 2007Applicant requested decision upon written record.
Decision dateOct 1, 2007

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on Considering New Evidence Submitted Post-decision
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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: Information submitted after the Judge has reached a decision is not a basis for error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11767.a1 DATE: 10/01/2007 DATE: October 1, 2007 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-11767

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) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On August 31, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F Applicant points out that the Judge’s decision states that she is an unsuitable candidate for an Information Systems position, while she is a Senior TRICARE Network Field Representative. This does not constitute harmful error, since Applicant’s job requires the same trustworthiness determination as an Information Systems position. (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided upon the written record. On March 30, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, the brief consists of a more detailed account of the accrual of Applicant’s debts–along with extensive attachments about her bankruptcy, as well as training certificates and letters of recommendation from her employer. Almost all the information Applicant provided in her brief is new information which she did not provide earlier. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive E3.1.29. In her brief, Applicant states that she did not understand the depth of information requested from her earlier in the trustworthiness determination process. Applicant had opportunities to present all the information she wished the Judge to consider in her trustworthiness determination. She answered DOHA Interrogatories and submitted an affidavit about her financial situation. She responded to the SOR which she received. After the File of Relevant Material was completed in her case, she submitted additional information for consideration. That information was added to the record for the Judge’s consideration. Applicant does not contend that she did not receive adequate instruction on what materials to submit or that the Judge did not consider all the information she submitted before the record was closed. Information submitted by an applicant after the Judge has reached a decision is not a basis for error. 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. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant access to automated information systems in ADP I/II/III sensitivity positions is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Member, 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