CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03372.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-03372.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03372.a1

deniedJun 5, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a trustworthiness designation under Security Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from concerns regarding the applicant's financial history and personal conduct.

During the appeal process, the applicant submitted new evidence indicating a paid debt. However, the Board was unable to consider this new evidence, as appellate rules prohibit the introduction of new information at this stage. The applicant's appeal brief also did not assert any harmful error made by the Judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, due to the inability to consider the new evidence and the lack of asserted judicial error, the Board affirmed the original denial of the applicant's trustworthiness designation.

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 EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial 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 issuedOct 17, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 31, 2009
Decision dateJun 5, 2009

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

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: 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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