A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-16942.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 21, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to allege harmful error in the judge's decision. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not present any claims of error that would warrant a review of the initial ruling.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error by the judge.
- The appeal board's authority is limited to cases where harmful error is claimed.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-25
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-10-15
- Decision date
- 2008-02-21
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations of Appeal Board Authority
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F
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
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-16942.a1 DATE: 02/21/2008 DATE: February 21, 2008 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-16942
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 25, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On October 15, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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