A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-03931.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 13, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to unresolved financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not allege any harmful error in the original decision and submitted new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.
- The new evidence submitted was not considered by the Appeal Board.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 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
- 2017-12-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-05-23 Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2018-08-13 Appeal Board decision affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Authority of the Appeal Board in Reviewing Cases
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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03931.a1 DATE: 08/13/2018 DATE: August 13, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-03931
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 December 13, 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 May 23, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 his efforts to resolve his financial problems and documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board