CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06006.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06006.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06006.a1

deniedJun 8, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, which was ultimately denied. The core issue involved a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

The appeal was denied because the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the Board could not consider new evidence that the applicant presented during the appeal process, as appellate review is limited to the record established at the initial hearing.

The disqualifying condition raised was AG ¶ 20. Due to the lack of asserted judicial error and the inability to consider new evidence, the appeal was denied, and the trustworthiness designation was not granted.

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 ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board does not review a case de novo.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 22, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 19, 2018
Decision dateJun 8, 2018

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

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: 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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