A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-02153.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 19, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The Department of Defense denied her application based on trustworthiness concerns, and the Appeal Board upheld this decision, noting the absence of harmful error in the judge's ruling and the inapplicability of new evidence presented on appeal.
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.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider the impact that an adverse decision may have on an applicant.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-09-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-06-09
- Decision date
- 2016-08-19
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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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