CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06228.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06228.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06228.a1

Dec 22, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) due to concerns regarding criminal and dishonest conduct. The original decision was based on these issues, which were cited under the relevant security guidelines.

The applicant appealed the denial, submitting new evidence related to probation. However, the Appeal Board did not consider this new evidence because it was not part of the original record. Furthermore, the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge in the initial decision.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the applicant's eligibility. The applicant failed to meet the necessary criteria, and the appeal did not present grounds for overturning the original determination.

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.”
— Department of Defense Directive 5220.6

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 17, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 27, 2016Decision made by Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
Decision dateDec 22, 2016Appeal 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· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant seeking eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) after the Administrative Judge denied the request based on criminal and dishonest conduct. The Board affirmed the decision as the Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline CAC

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Board cannot consider new evidence.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Catherine M. Engstrom
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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: 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

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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