CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-23337.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-23337.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-23337.a1

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

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Administrative Judge had raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and AG ¶ 17.

The denial was upheld because the applicant failed to allege harmful error by the Administrative Judge in her appeal. The Appeal Board's authority is strictly limited to reviewing cases where such an error is claimed. Without this specific allegation, the Board could not overturn the initial unfavorable trustworthiness determination.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the applicant did not receive the requested trustworthiness designation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Administrative Judge in her appeal.
The Appeal Board's authority is limited to reviewing cases where harmful error is claimed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16appliedGuideline E (personal Conduct)
AG ¶ 17appliedGuideline F (financial Considerations)

Key Rule Quoted

“The board authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 18, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 26, 2008
Decision dateJul 8, 2008

Cite For

Limitations of Appeal Authority Regarding Harmful Error Allegations
Requirements for Trustworthiness Designation Appeals
Impact of Self-representation on Appeal Outcomes

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

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The board authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-23337.a1 DATE: 07/08/2008 DATE: July 8, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-23337

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) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On July 18, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F Applicant’s brief states only that she “would like to appeal the Administrative Judge’s decision” and that she is not represented by a lawyer. (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 26, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant 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. 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; Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board