A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-01253.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 29, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · 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 was denied as the applicant did not assert harmful error and presented new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert harmful error in the appeal.
- New evidence regarding debt reduction was not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-05-22
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2014-11-03 Decision made by Judge Marc E. Curry.
- Decision date
- 2015-01-29 Appeal decision affirmed.
Cite for
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations 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: Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01253.a1 DATE: 01/29/2015 DATE: January 29, 2015 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Position of Trust ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-01253
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 May 22, 2014, 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 decision on the written record. On November 3, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error. Rather, it contains new evidence regarding his efforts at debt reduction. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. We do not review cases de novo. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-03372 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2009). Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED.1 Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board
Footnotes
1 One of the documents that Applicant has attached to his brief appears to refer to a medical debt that was addressed in the record evidence. The Judge resolved this debt in Applicant’s favor. Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 13-00584 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 24, 2014).