A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-12656.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 28, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael D. Hipple · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Administrative Judge denied the application due to concerns under the cited guidelines, and the Board affirmed the decision as the applicant did not assert harmful error on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-10-04
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-02-27
- Decision date
- 2007-08-28
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion on Appeal
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process
- Guidance on Trustworthiness Designation Under Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct Guidelines
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
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-12656.a1 DATE: 08/28/2007 DATE: August 28, 2007 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-12656
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 October 4, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. F (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 February 27, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to 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. Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from Applicant along with attachments. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error, which Applicant has not done. See ADP Case 06-07421 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 2007).
Order
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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board