Loading case…

ISCR 18-02847.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal (2020) · CASE

ISCR Case 18-02847.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02847.a1

unknownJun 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who appealed the denial of a trustworthiness designation, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing herself, objected to the admission of an interview summary during the initial hearing, arguing it presented her negatively.

The appeal board determined that the judge erred by admitting this contested summary. Consequently, the board remanded the case for a new decision. The new decision is to be made without relying on the interview summary that the applicant had objected to. The outcome of the trustworthiness designation is currently none, pending this new decision.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 18, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 11, 2020Decision issued by Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason
Decision dateJun 3, 2020Appeal decision remanding the case

Cite for

Remand Due to Evidentiary Error in Admitting Contested Interview Summary
Due Process Concerns Regarding Admission of Evidence
Importance of Clear Objections to Evidence in Security Clearance Cases

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: Although Applicant stated in her Response that she objected to the FORM itself, it is clear that she was lodging an objection to the interview summary. Moreover, she specifically mentioned the investigator, who prepared the interview summary, in presenting her argument on appeal. Although the Judge may well have misunderstood Applicant’s objection, given its wording, we conclude that he erred by admitting and considering the summary. We conclude that the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge. Adverse decision is remanded. CASE NO: 18-02847.a1 DATE: 06/03/2020 DATE: June 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ADP Case No. 18-02847

) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 December 18, 2018, 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 11, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises an issue of due process. She notes that the File of Relevant Material (FORM) advised her that she could object to the admission of her interview summary. In her Response to the FORM, Applicant stated the following: I would like to object to the inclusion of the [FORM] in this case. It starts off with incorrect information in the second sentence and just keeps going. I read through the investigator’s summary . . . They painted me in such a negative light. In her appeal brief, however, she notes that the Judge stated that she had not objected and, accordingly, he admitted the interview summary and considered it. Appeal Brief at 1, citing to Decision at 2. She argues that the Judge’s admission of this document was erroneous. We examine a Judge’s evidentiary rulings to determine if they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g,. ISCR Case No. 15-05047 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 2017). We find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Although she stated in her Response that she objected to the FORM itself, it is clear that she was lodging an objection to the interview summary. Moreover, she specifically mentioned the investigator, who prepared the interview summary, in presenting her argument on appeal. Although the Judge may well have misunderstood Applicant’s objection, given its wording, we conclude that he erred by admitting and considering the summary. We conclude that the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge. He should issue a new decision in which he does not rely on information contained in the interview summary. Other issues raised in Applicant’s brief are not ripe for consideration.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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