CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-21950.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-21950.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-21950.a1

Feb 8, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial was affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found that the applicant did not allege harmful error by the Administrative Judge in her appeal.

The Administrative Judge had raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 18 and applied Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20 in the initial decision. The applicant's appeal included new evidence of debt payments, but the Appeal Board is unable to consider new evidence presented at the appellate stage.

Because the applicant did not claim that the Administrative Judge made a harmful error, and the new evidence could not be considered, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the trustworthiness designation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20notedFinancial 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 issuedDec 14, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 15, 2007decided on the written record
Decision dateFeb 8, 2008

Cite For

Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal
Financial Considerations 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.

Appeal at a glance· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant seeking to overturn the Administrative Judge's denial of a trustworthiness designation based on financial considerations. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal. The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, and new evidence presented by the Applicant could not be considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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: 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. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASENO: 06-21950.a1 DATE: 02/08/2008 DATE: February 8, 2008 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-21950

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 December 14, 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 the case be decided on the written record. On October 15, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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. Rather, it contains new evidence that she has paid two debts, one of which the Judge found in her favor, and is in negotiation over the third debt. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board