A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-16882.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 4, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness determination under Guideline F due to financial issues. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error and new evidence regarding a repayment plan was not considered. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the absence of harmful error claims.
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.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-04-20 Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2007-09-04
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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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