CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-12656.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-12656.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-12656.a1

deniedAug 28, 2007· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant seeking a trustworthiness designation, who represented himself throughout the process. The Administrative Judge denied the application, citing concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The applicant subsequently appealed this decision. However, the appeal did not assert any harmful error in the initial ruling. The Board, which cannot consider new evidence during an appeal, affirmed the Administrative Judge's denial.

Consequently, the applicant's trustworthiness designation was denied, as the Board found no basis to overturn the initial decision given the nature of the 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 issuedOct 4, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 27, 2007
Decision dateAug 28, 2007

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

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

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

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 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