A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-03372.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 5, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guidelines E and F but was denied due to financial and personal conduct concerns. The appeal was based on new evidence of a paid debt, which the Board could not consider, leading to the affirmation of the denial.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG E Personal Conductraised
- AG F 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
- 2008-10-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-03-31
- Decision date
- 2009-06-05
Cite for
- Limitations on Appeal Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Affirmation of Trustworthiness Denial Based on Lack of Appealable Issues
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: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03372.a1 DATE: 06/05/2009 DATE: June 5, 2009 In Re: -------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 08-03372
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On October 17, 2008, DOHA 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On March 31, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 new evidence, in the form of a documentary exhibit which indicates that Applicant has paid off a $7,813.40 debt. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. It does not review cases de novo. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board