CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06854.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06854.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06854.a1

deniedAug 24, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on concerns regarding his personal conduct, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition E2.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal was subsequently denied. The appellate authority found that the applicant's brief failed to demonstrate any harmful error on the part of the judge in the initial decision. Additionally, the appeal included new evidence that had not been presented or considered during the original adjudication process.

Consequently, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the applicant's trustworthiness designation was ultimately denied.

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

E2raisedPersonal Conduct

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.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-01734 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jan 19, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 16, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 13, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
Decision dateAug 24, 2017Appeal 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

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 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

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 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