CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-09114.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-09114.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-09114.a1

deniedJan 28, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The denial stemmed from financial concerns.

The applicant appealed the DOHA decision; however, the appeal was subsequently denied. The Board's review process is strictly limited to evaluating allegations of harmful error made by the appellant. In this case, the applicant did not assert any such error in her appeal.

Furthermore, new evidence presented by the applicant regarding improvements to her financial situation was not considered during the appeal process. The outcome underscores that for a successful appeal, an applicant must demonstrate harmful error in the initial decision, and new evidence is not typically admissible at the appellate stage.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
The Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error, which were not made by the applicant.
New evidence regarding financial improvements was not considered on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG FraisedFinancial 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 issuedFeb 11, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 19, 2008
Decision dateJan 28, 2009

Cite For

Importance of Asserting Harmful Error for Appeal Success
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Process
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

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: Applicant did not make a claim of harmful error by the Judge. Accordingly, the Board has no authority to review the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-09114.a1 DATE: 01/28/2009 DATE: January 28, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 07-09114

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 February 11, 2008, 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 a hearing. On November 19, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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. Applicant also states that loss of her case will have an adverse impact on her employment situation. The adverse impact of a decision on an applicant is not a factor that can be considered in evaluating an applicant’s trustworthiness eligibility. Cf. ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005). Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of an explanatory statement and documentary exhibits, which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that she has reduced her expenditures, and has paid off or is attempting to resolve her outstanding debts.1 The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board DATE: January 28, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 07-09114

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 February 11, 2008, 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 a hearing. On November 19, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of an explanatory statement and documentary exhibits, Applicant also states that loss of her case will have an adverse impact on her employment situation. The adverse impact of a decision on an applicant is not a factor that can be considered in evaluating an applicant’s trustworthiness eligibility. Cf. ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005). which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that she has reduced her expenditures, and has paid off or is attempting to resolve her outstanding debts.2 The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board