CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00633.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00633.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00633.a1

deniedFeb 12, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Specifically, disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1 and F2.A1.1 were raised during the review process.

The denial was upheld because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge in his appeal. Furthermore, the appeal brief submitted by the applicant contained no new evidence for consideration that would alter the initial decision.

Consequently, the appeal was affirmed, and the applicant's request for a trustworthiness designation was ultimately denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.
The appeal brief contained no new evidence for consideration.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1appliedPersonal Conduct
F2.A1.1appliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 6, 2018Administrative Judge denied the request.
Decision dateFeb 12, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Allegation
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Application of Guidelines E and F in Trustworthiness 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

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00633.a1 DATE: 02/12/2019 DATE: February 12, 2019 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 18-00633

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 30, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 6, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman 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 document that post-dates the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board