ISCR Case No. 15-07882.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation “because it was not asked of to provide any of that information.” and “[he] can provide that information.” A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider [.]” The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07882.a1 DATE: 12/7/2017 DATE: December 7, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-07882

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 June 9, 2016, 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 October 6, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not file a response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge based his adverse decision in the case in large measure on the fact that the record contained no documentary evidence supporting Applicant’s assertions that he filed his 2013-2014 Federal and state tax returns, or otherwise describing arrangements or contacts he may have had with the IRS concerning his tax issues. Decision at 5. On appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing his financial situation and the status of his tax issues. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that he did not provide information about his financial situation “because it was not asked of me to provide any of that information” and “[he] can provide that information.” A review of the record indicates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter, in November 2016. The cover letter in particular stated that Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover Letter, dated November 3, 2016. The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.” Accordingly, Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05094 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016). Finally, Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact relating to the debt for a medical bill alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor as to that allegation, so it is not at issue on appeal. The Board does not review a case de novo. Applicant has not established any 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