A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-06854.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 24, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) but was denied due to concerns regarding his personal conduct. The appeal was denied as the applicant's brief did not demonstrate any harmful error by the judge and included new evidence not considered during the original decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's brief did not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.
- The appeal consisted of new evidence not considered on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“We do not review a case de novo. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party contends that the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-16
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-07-13 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
- Decision date
- 2017-08-24 Appeal affirmed by the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Shown
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeals
- Jurisdictional Constraints of the Appeal Board Regarding 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 E DIGEST: Applicant’s brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-06854.a1 DATE: 08/24/2017 DATE: August 24, 2017 In Re: ----------------
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-06854
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 April 16, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s brief does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Rather, it consists of information about events that have occurred since the close of the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We do not review a case de novo. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party contends that the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01734 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jan 19, 2017). Accordingly, the Decision 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