A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-02263.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 12, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation but was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Appeal Board upheld the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and that new evidence could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's brief did not raise any allegations of harmful error against the Administrative Judge.
- The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence not contained in the record.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsapplied
- AG ¶ 15 Personal Conductapplied
- AG ¶ 30 Criminal Conductapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-11-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-08-23
- Decision date
- 2019-11-12
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial and Personal Conduct Issues
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Prohibition Against Considering New Evidence on Appeal
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; Guideline E; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also request that we reconsider his unfavorable decision. The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02263.a1 DATE: 11/12/2019
DATE: November 12, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ADP Case No. 18-02263 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )
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 November 23, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 23, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not contained in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also request that we reconsider his unfavorable decision. The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is affirmed.
Order
The Decision 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