A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-16663.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 10, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation but was denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge, and new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal did not assert harmful error by the judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
- AG ¶ 14 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-08-31
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-03-30 Decision issued by Administrative Judge.
- Decision date
- 2007-09-10 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline E and F
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: 06-16663.a1 DATE: 09/10/2007 DATE: September 10, 2007 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-16663
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 31, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On March 30, 2007, 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 a statement from the Applicant summarizing the evidence presented below and updating the status of her efforts to obtain a discharge in bankruptcy. 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board