A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-02592.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 24, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought eligibility for a public trust position but was denied due to trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was affirmed by the Appeal Board as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in her appeal, and the Board's review was limited to the existing record without new evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in her appeal.
- The Appeal Board's authority is limited to cases with an allegation of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
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 issued
- 2014-08-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-05-29 Decision made by Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross.
- Decision date
- 2015-07-24 Appeal Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error on Appeal
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Existing Record Without New Evidence
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: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited to cases with an allegation of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 14-02592.a1 DATE: 07/24/2015 DATE: July 24, 2015 In Re: ------ Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-02592
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. On August 11, 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 May 29, 2015, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. 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, her submission is a narrative statement that she is continuing to work hard to pay off her debts. The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board