A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-06006.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 8, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F due to financial considerations, specifically a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge and presented new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence presented in the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-03-22
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2018-03-19
- Decision date
- 2018-06-08
Cite for
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Consideration of New Evidence on Appeal
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: 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 and a document updating the status of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06006.a1 DATE: 06/08/2018 DATE: June 8, 2018 In Re: ----------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-06006
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 March 22, 2017, 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 19, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement and a document updating the status of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board