CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05768.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05768.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05768.a1

deniedJun 22, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to assert harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

During the appeal process, the applicant, representing himself, submitted new evidence that had not been presented to the judge. The Appeal Board, however, could not consider this new evidence.

Ultimately, the Board affirmed the judge's decision, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated any harmful error in the original ruling. The disqualifying condition F.1 was raised in this case.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert harmful error in the judge's decision.
New evidence submitted on appeal was not considered as it was not previously submitted to the judge.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 15, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 27, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi.
Decision dateJun 22, 2017Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Cite For

Affirmation of a Judge's Decision Due to Lack of Harmful Error Assertion
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
Guidance on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-05768.a1 DATE: 06/22/2017 DATE: June 22, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No.14-05768

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 a trustworthiness designation. On December 15, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 27, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 new evidence in the form of a narrative statement about events that have had an impact on his finances and the progress he has made in resolving his debts. It also contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge, many of which post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review cases 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, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board