A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-00633.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 12, 2019 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation but was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Administrative Judge, and the appeal brief contained no new evidence.
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.A2.1 Personal Conductapplied
- F2.A1.1 Financial Considerationsapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-03-30
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2018-12-06 Administrative Judge denied the request.
- Decision date
- 2019-02-12 Appeal 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
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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