CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-17302.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-17302.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-17302.a1

deniedJul 25, 2007· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position due to unresolved concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The initial denial cited disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 23 were applied.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was ultimately denied. The Board could not consider the new evidence presented by the applicant during the appeal process, as it was not part of the original record. Furthermore, the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, which is a necessary component for a successful appeal.

Consequently, the trustworthiness designation was denied, upholding the original decision based on the presented facts and the procedural limitations of the appeal.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
The appeal included new evidence that was not considered by the Board.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23rejectedFinancial Considerations Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant's new evidence regarding resolved debt was not considered on appeal.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 22, 2007
Decision dateJul 25, 2007

Cite For

Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-17302.a1 DATE: 07/25/2007 DATE: July 25, 2007 In Re: --------- --------- Applicant for ADP I/II/III Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-17302

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 15, 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 The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E, and with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a-1.u and 1.w-1.cc. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 22, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey 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 evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant and a document not previously submitted by the Applicant. This evidence indicates that Applicant has now resolved her sole outstanding debt, and attests to her good character and job performance. 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 D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, 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