A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-02557.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 11, 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 issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the trustworthiness designation, noting the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the initial decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not allege harmful error in the appeal.
- The Appeal Board's review is limited to allegations of harmful error.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-01-22 Decision by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone
- Decision date
- 2018-04-11 Appeal Board decision
Cite for
- Limitations of Appeal Board Review Authority
- Importance of Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
- Financial Considerations 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: The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is affirmed. CASENO: 16-02557.a1 DATE: 04/11/2018
DATE: April 11, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 16-02557
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 April 28, 2016, 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 January 22, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 a narrative statement about the circumstances that caused Applicant’s financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. He also contends that he is a trusted employee who would never do anything to compromise sensitive information. The Board does not review cases 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board