CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-25938.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-25938.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-25938.a1

deniedFeb 15, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The appeal board affirmed this denial.

While a favorable finding was made under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision regarding the Guideline G concerns. Consequently, the trustworthiness designation was denied based on the unresolved issues related to alcohol consumption.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
Trustworthiness concerns were raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

GraisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

EappliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 28, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 18, 2007
Decision dateFeb 15, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline G
Favorable Findings Under Guideline E Not Contested on Appeal.

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 G; Guideline e DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-25938.a1 DATE: 02/15/2008 DATE: February 15, 2008 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-25938

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 February 28, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E. That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal. E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On October 18, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board