CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-16942.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-16942.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-16942.a1

deniedFeb 21, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board affirmed the initial denial, citing the applicant's failure to allege harmful error in the judge's decision.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F1. The appeal board's authority is specifically limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed, and in this instance, the applicant did not present any such claims that would warrant a review of the initial ruling.

Consequently, the appeal was affirmed, and the applicant's request for a trustworthiness designation was denied.

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

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedAug 25, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 15, 2007
Decision dateFeb 21, 2008

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

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

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

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 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