A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
CAC Case No. 15-06228.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 22, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) but was denied due to concerns regarding criminal and dishonest conduct. The appeal was based on new evidence related to probation, which was not considered by the Appeal Board as the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the original judge. The denial was affirmed as the applicant failed to meet the necessary criteria for eligibility.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- The appeal included new evidence that was not permitted for consideration by the Appeal Board.
- The original denial was based on criminal and dishonest conduct concerns.
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
- 2015-11-17
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-09-27 Decision made by Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
- Decision date
- 2016-12-22 Appeal decision affirmed by the Appeal Board
Cite for
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
- Criteria for CAC Eligibility Based on Criminal Conduct Concerns
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal was regarding the denial of the Applicant's eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) due to concerns of criminal and dishonest conduct. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal, leading the Board to affirm the Administrative Judge's decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: CAC Criminal and Dishonest Conduct DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, i.e., a document about Applicant’s probation that he had not submitted to the Judge. Under ¶ E3.1.29 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, the Appeal Board may not receive or consider new evidence. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06228.a1 DATE: 12/22/2016 DATE: December 22, 2016 In Re: -------
Applicant for CAC Eligibility ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAC Case No. 15-06228
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant eligibility for Common Access Card (CAC) credentialing. On November 17, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–criminal and dishonest conduct concerns raised under the adjudicative standards in the appendices of DoD Instruction 5200.46 (Sep. 9, 2014) (Instruction). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 27, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for CAC eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Instruction, Enclosure 4 ¶ 6. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence, i.e., a document about Applicant’s probation that he had not submitted to the Judge. Under ¶ E3.1.29 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended), the Appeal Board may not receive or consider new evidence. 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. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board