A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-23337.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 8, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was denied due to the applicant's failure to allege harmful error by the Administrative Judge, leading to an unfavorable outcome regarding trustworthiness concerns.
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 ¶ 16 Guideline E (Personal Conduct)applied
- AG ¶ 17 Guideline F (Financial Considerations)applied
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 issued
- 2007-07-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2008-03-26
- Decision date
- 2008-07-08
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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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