CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01967.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01967.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01967.a1

deniedJun 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board upheld this denial.

The Board noted that the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, the Board could not consider new evidence that was not part of the original record.

A key factor in the denial was an adverse finding of falsification, which independently provided a sufficient basis for the decision. The denial was therefore affirmed, citing disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1 and F2.A1.1.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not raise any allegations of error by the Judge.
The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not in the record.
The adverse falsification finding was an independent basis for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedPersonal Conduct
F2.A1.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 4, 2019Decision on the written record.
Decision dateJun 4, 2019

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error
Independent Basis for Adverse Findings in Trustworthiness Cases

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

KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, her brief merely forwards documents that are not in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01967.a1 DATE: 06/04/2019 DATE: June 4, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------------- ) ADP Case No. 18-01967 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On August 15, 2018, DoD 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 a decision on the written record. On March 4, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.1 Rather, her brief merely forwards documents that are not in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

The Board does not review a case de novo. 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 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant submitted two appeal briefs. We received her second brief about 11 days past the submission deadline. The Directive permits a party to submit only one appeal brief. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03393 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 6, 2018). In her second appeal brief, Applicant indicated that she submitted matters in response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material that did not make it into the record. Her second brief also reflects that she mailed those matters to her company, instead of to Department Counsel or DOHA. We note those matters pertain only to the alleged debts and do not address the falsification allegation that the Judge found against her. Even if we were to consider the matters contained in her second appeal brief, they are not enough to change the outcome of the case because the adverse falsification finding is a sufficient independent basis for sustaining the Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness decision.