A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-17302.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 25, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael D. Hipple · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation for an ADP position but was denied due to unresolved trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F related to financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered on 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 ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 23 Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditionsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-01-22
- Decision date
- 2007-07-25
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
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 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
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