A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-15503.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 23, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline H concerning drug involvement. The denial was based on the applicant's admission of future marijuana use, and the appeal was denied as it did not assert harmful error by the judge, nor could new evidence be considered. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial due to the lack of harmful error claims and the existing record.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to future marijuana use, raising trustworthiness concerns under Guideline H.
- The appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge, limiting the Board's review.
- New evidence presented in the appeal could not be considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H1 Drug involvementraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2006-11-29
- Decision date
- 2007-05-23
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- The Requirement to Assert Harmful Error for Appeal Consideration
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 H DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-15503.a1 DATE: 05/23/2007 DATE: May 23, 2007 In Re: --------- SSN:------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Designation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-15503
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 August 16, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On November 29, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 explaining why she told the government’s investigator that she intended to use marijuana in the future. 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