A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-03904.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Nov 6, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought eligibility for a public trust position but was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal did not assert any harmful error by the judge and included new evidence regarding debt payments, which was not considered by the Board. The Board upheld the denial, affirming the Administrative Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to assert harmful error by the judge in the appeal.
- The new evidence presented was not considered by the Board as it post-dated the judge's decision.
- The judge found trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F due to unresolved debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Board does not review a case de novo.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-09-01 Decision made by Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry.
- Decision date
- 2017-11-06 Board affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Limitations of the Board's Review Authority Regarding New Evidence
- Importance of Asserting Harmful Error in Appeals
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: The Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03904.a1 DATE: 11/6/2017 DATE: November 6, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-03904
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 a public trust position. On January 20, 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 September 1, 2017, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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 documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. The documents indicate Applicant is making payments on, or has satisfied, eight of the seventeen debts listed in the SOR. The Judge had found in favor of the Applicant as to three of the debts referenced in her appeal submission. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board