A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-07254.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 4, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and submitted new evidence that was not considered on appeal. The decision of the Administrative Judge was upheld by the Appeal Board.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error on the part of the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-11-04
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested decision on written record.
- Hearing held
- 2011-07-29 Administrative Judge denied request for trustworthiness designation.
- Decision date
- 2011-10-04 Appeal Board affirmed the adverse decision.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline 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
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not made an assertion of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-07254.a1 DATE: 10/04/2011 DATE: October 4, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 09-07254
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 November 4, 2010, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On July 29, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant 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 by the Applicant explaining a portion
Footnotes
1 Applicant did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material. of the history of her finances, a letter from an attorney, dated March 2, 2011 discussing an intent to file for bankruptcy later that month, a certificate of counseling, a cancelled check for $65 and a statement from a state tax authority that Applicant’s accounts are in balance.1 The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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