CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02557.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02557.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02557.a1

deniedApr 11, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The applicant did not allege any harmful error in the initial decision during the appeal process. The Appeal Board's review is strictly limited to addressing allegations of harmful error.

Because no harmful error was alleged, the Appeal Board found no basis to overturn the initial decision, and the trustworthiness designation was ultimately denied.

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 ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedApr 28, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 22, 2018Decision by Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone
Decision dateApr 11, 2018Appeal 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

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: 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

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 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