CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-16882.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-16882.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-16882.a1

deniedSep 4, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who represented herself in a trustworthiness determination under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), which was ultimately denied. The Administrative Judge's decision to deny the applicant a security clearance was affirmed by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Appeal Board.

The denial was based on two primary factors. First, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in her appeal, which is a necessary component for overturning an Administrative Judge's decision. Second, the Appeal Board did not consider new evidence presented by the applicant regarding a repayment plan for her financial issues.

Consequently, the Appeal Board upheld the Administrative Judge's original decision, leading to the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert any harmful error on appeal.
New evidence regarding a repayment plan was not considered by the Board.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 28, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 20, 2007Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateSep 4, 2007

Cite For

Limitations on the Board's Authority to Review Cases Without Harmful Error Claims
The Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Financial Issues

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: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-16882.a1 DATE: 09/04/2007 DATE: September 4, 2007 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-16882

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 28, 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 The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraph 1.a. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On April 20, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1 Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new documentary evidence which indicates that Applicant has established a repayment plan for her outstanding debt, through a credit counseling service, and has been making monthly payments in furtherance of that plan. 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. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board