A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-04174.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 27, 2016 · 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, primarily related to unpaid debts. The applicant admitted to most allegations but failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the decision on appeal. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that it does not review cases de novo and cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- Applicant admitted to twenty-five of the thirty allegations in the Statement of Reasons, primarily concerning unpaid debts.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the findings or the decision of the Administrative Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-10-03
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2016-03-24 Decision made by Administrative Judge.
- Decision date
- 2016-05-27 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- The Inability to Consider New Evidence on Appeal
- The Importance of Providing Evidence to Counter Allegations 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
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 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04174.a1 DATE: 05/27/2016 DATE: May 27, 2016 In Re: ----- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-04174
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 October 3, 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 March 24, 2016, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant admitted without explanation twenty-five of the thirty factual allegations in the SOR. Twenty-three of the allegations she admitted to were for unpaid debts. She requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing her recollection of a 2013 discussion with an investigator regarding multiple job layoffs over a ten-year period, as well as an assertion that seven of the twenty-eight SOR debts are either duplicates or have been paid. The Board cannot consider 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board