A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-00623.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 24, 2017 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant's brief included new evidence that could not be considered, and no harmful error was asserted against the original judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief contained new evidence that could not be considered on appeal.
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG F Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-12-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-02-23 Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
- Decision date
- 2017-05-24 Appeal affirmed by the Board.
Cite for
- Limitations on New Evidence in Appeals
- Requirements for Asserting Harmful Error
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Without Harmful Error Claims
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 new evidence. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-00623.a1 DATE: 05/24/2017 DATE: May 24, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-00623
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 desigation. On December 30, 2015, 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 February 23, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 the status of certain debts and documents not previously submitted to the Judge, most of which post-date the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board