CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02153.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02153.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02153.a1

deniedAug 19, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to trustworthiness concerns. The Department of Defense initially denied her application, a decision subsequently upheld by the Appeal Board.

The Board's decision affirmed the judge's ruling, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's original determination. Furthermore, the Appeal Board was unable to consider new evidence submitted by the applicant during the appeal process, as its mandate restricts it from reviewing information not presented at the initial hearing.

The Board also clarified that it could not consider the potential adverse impact of the denial on the applicant's employment prospects. Consequently, the denial of eligibility for the public trust position was sustained.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error by the judge in her appeal.
The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence submitted by the applicant on appeal.
The Board cannot consider the potential adverse impact of the decision on the applicant's employment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider the impact that an adverse decision may have on an applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 22, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 9, 2016
Decision dateAug 19, 2016

Cite For

Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
Standards for Evaluating Trustworthiness 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

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Tha Board cannot consider the impact that an adverse decision may have on an applicant. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-02153.a1 DATE: 08/19/2016 DATE: August 19, 2016 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-02153

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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 September 22, 2015, 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 June 9, 2016, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing Applicant’s current financial situation and two character reference letters. Applicant also states that loss of her clearance will have an adverse impact on her employment. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Likewise, we are not permitted to consider the impact that an adverse decision may have on an applicant. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-02496 at 3 (App. Bd. May 14, 2015). 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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