CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00623.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00623.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00623.a1

deniedMay 24, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), which was ultimately denied. The appeal focused on financial considerations, with the applicant attempting to introduce new evidence in his appeal brief.

However, this new evidence could not be considered during the appeal process. Furthermore, the applicant did not assert any harmful error on the part of the original judge's decision.

Given these factors, the appeal was denied, and the trustworthiness designation was not granted.

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 FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2017Decision made by Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
Decision dateMay 24, 2017Appeal 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

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 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

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 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