A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 04-07214.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 16, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied due to the absence of allegations of harmful error and the inability to consider new evidence presented on appeal. The decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence presented in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2005-06-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-04-27
- Decision date
- 2007-03-16
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegations
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Inability to Consider New Evidence 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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 04-07214.a1 DATE: 03/16/2007 DATE: March 16, 2007 In Re: ------- SSN: -------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 04-07214
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 June 17, 2005, 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 April 27, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson 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, in the form of a statement from the Applicant, which indicates that she has obtained a current copy of her credit report, determined the status of her outstanding debts, enlisted the assistance of a credit attorney to clear up those debts, and is awaiting a plan of action from that attorney. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, 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