CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-07421.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-07421.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-07421.a1

deniedApr 16, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Her application was ultimately denied.

The denial stemmed from several financial concerns, specifically those outlined in AG ¶ 20. During the appeal process, the applicant acknowledged receipt of all relevant materials but did not assert that the judge made any harmful errors in the initial decision.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that it could not consider new evidence presented for the first time during the appeal. Since the applicant did not claim harmful error by the judge, and the Board was limited to the existing record, the denial of her trustworthiness designation was upheld.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in her appeal.
The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence presented in the appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2006
Answer filedJul 19, 2006Applicant acknowledged receipt of FORM.
Hearing heldOct 30, 2006Decision issued by Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard.
Decision dateApr 16, 2007Appeal Board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals

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 Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-07421.a1 DATE: 04/16/2007 DATE: April 16, 2007 In Re: --------- SSN: ------ Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-07421

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 May 15, 2006, 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 October 30, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.. In her brief, Applicant states that she never received a copy of the government’s file of relevant material (FORM), and that is the reason she never filed a response to that document. However, a review of the case file indicates that Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM in writing on July 19, 2006. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1 Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant and documentary attachments. This evidence updates Applicant’s answer to the SOR, explains her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems, and attests to her good character and job performance. 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: 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