A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-03823
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 9, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge, and the appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the impact of the decision on the applicant's finances could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- The appeal board is limited to reviewing claims of harmful error and did not find any.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-02-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2021-12-02
- Decision date
- 2022-02-09
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations on Appeal Review Regarding Harmful Error
- Non-consideration of Financial Hardship in Trustworthiness Decisions
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
Appearances
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----------- )
ADP Case No. 20-03823
)
) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: February 9, 2022
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 February 15, 2020, DoD 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 a hearing. On December 2, 2021, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but does refer to payments Applicant has made to creditors after the hearing decision was issued. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also indicates that denial of a trustworthiness designation will create a financial
hardship. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The 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 sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board