A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-15770.a1
Not statedDecided Mar 26, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced trustworthiness concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) in a case regarding access to sensitive information. The appeal board affirmed the adverse decision and remanded the case for further processing after the applicant did not object to the government's motion for expedited remand.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E Personal Conductapplied
- F Financial Considerationsapplied
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-22
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-02-28 Decision made by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
- Decision date
- 2007-03-26 Case remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline E and Guideline F
- Administrative Remand Process
- Impact of Applicant's Non-objection to Government Motions
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 7 per allegation rows needs a free account.
7 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The non-appealing party filed a motion for expedited remand. The appealing party did not object. For reasons of economy the case is remanded for further processing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-15770.a1 DATE: 03/26/2007 DATE: March 26, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-15770 APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND APPEARANCES FOR GOVERNMENT Gina L Marine, Esq., 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 decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and 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 28, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On March 21, 2007, Department Counsel filed a Motion for Expedited Remand. On March 23, 2007, Applicant filed a response to the government’s motion stating that she had no objection. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing. Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board