Loading case…

ISCR 06-04371.a1: Guideline B security clearance hearing (2007) · CASE

ISCR Case 06-04371.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-04371.a1

unknownMay 29, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This security clearance case involved an applicant, represented by counsel, who faced denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Administrative Judge initially issued an adverse decision, leading to a denial of the applicant's clearance.

However, the case did not conclude there. Both parties subsequently filed a joint motion for expedited handling, which resulted in the case being remanded for further processing. This means the initial adverse decision was set aside, and the case was sent back for additional review or proceedings.

As of the current information, there has been no final outcome determined for this security clearance application. The disqualifying conditions raised were specifically related to foreign influence and personal conduct.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

BraisedForeign Influence
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural posture

SOR issuedNov 8, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 3, 2007
Decision dateMay 29, 2007case remanded for further processing

Cite for

Remand for Further Processing After Adverse Decision
Joint Motion for Expedited Processing
Security Concerns Under Guideline B and E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Appeal

The case was remanded for further processing, and no formal findings were made regarding the allegations under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). As a result, the outcome regarding the applicant's foreign influence concerns remains unresolved.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Unknown

The case was remanded for further processing, and no formal findings were made regarding the allegations under Guideline E. As a result, there are no resolved personal conduct concerns to report.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E DIGEST: In accordance with a joint motion of the parties, the Board is remanding the case to the Administrative Judge for further processing. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 06-04371.a1 DATE: 05/29/2007 DATE: May 29, 2007 In Re: ------------ SSN: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-04371 APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND APPEARANCES FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esq, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT James Krueger, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 8, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 3, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On May 15, 2007, Department Counsel filed a Motion for Expedited Remand. On May 16, 2007, Applicant filed a response to the government’s motion stating that he joined in Department Counsel’s motion. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case his hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing. Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board