A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05768.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 22, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to failure to assert harmful error in the judge's decision. The appeal included new evidence not previously submitted, which the Appeal Board could not consider. The Board affirmed the judge's decision based on the lack of harmful error allegations.
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.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-12-15
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-04-27 Decision made by Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi.
- Decision date
- 2017-06-22 Appeal 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
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 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
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