A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02265
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 8, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal was granted due to procedural defects in the original decision, specifically the lack of formal findings on the specific allegations against the applicant. The case is remanded for a new decision addressing these errors.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG B Foreign Influenceraised
- AG E Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“An adverse security clearance decision shall make findings for or against an applicant with respect to each SOR allegation.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-09-06
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-04-27
- Decision date
- 2022-07-08 Decision remanded due to procedural defects.
Cite for
- Procedural Defects in Security Clearance Decisions
- Requirement for Formal Findings on Specific Allegations
- Remand for Correction of Identified Errors in Clearance Decisions
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and Guideline B. The Board found that the Administrative Judge failed to make formal findings on specific allegations, leading to a remand for correction of this procedural error. The decision was remanded for further proceedings.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
___________________________________
) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 20-02265
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: July 8, 2022
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 6, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision⸺security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 27, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a threshold matter, we note a procedural defect in the Judge’s decision under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended. In her decision, the Judge did not make formal findings for or against Applicant on the specific SOR allegations. Instead, similar to decisions issued under DoD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the Personnel Security Program (PSP), she merely found against Applicant on the
two alleged guidelines without addressing the specific allegations. Section 3(7) of Executive Order 10865 provides that an adverse security clearance decision shall make findings for or against an applicant with respect to each SOR allegation. See also Directive ¶ E3.1.25 (stating a clearance decision shall set forth “conclusions as to the allegations in the SOR”) and ISCR Case No. 08 07803 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2009). Highlighting this point, we note the Judge made no formal finding on a Guideline B allegation pertaining to one of Applicant’s foreign relatives who is now deceased. The Judge’s error impacts the Board’s review of the decision and potentially Applicant’s rights under the Directive. See, e.g., Directive ¶ E3.1.38. The Judge’s decision is remanded to correct this error. Upon remand, a judge is required to issue a new decision after correcting identified error(s). See Directive ¶ E3.1.35. The Board retains no continuing jurisdiction over a remanded decision. However, a Judge’s decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Order
The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board