A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-07320.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 25, 2007 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The DOHA Appeal Board found that the Administrative Judge failed to consider the applicant's timely response to the File of Relevant Material, which warranted remanding the case for a new decision that includes this submission.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant submitted a timely response to the File of Relevant Material, which was not considered by the Administrative Judge.
- The Appeal Board found that the applicant's submission on appeal was meritorious.
Key rule quoted
“The proper remedy is to remand the case to the Judge for a new decision, one which takes into account Applicant’s submission in response to the FORM.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-06-30
- Answer filed
- null
- Hearing held
- null
- Decision date
- 2007-07-25
Cite for
- Remand Due to Failure to Consider Timely Submitted Evidence
- Due Process Rights in Security Clearance Cases
- Importance of Documentary Responses in Financial Consideration Cases Under Guideline F
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 financial considerations. The Applicant argued that he was denied due process because the Judge incorrectly stated that he did not submit a response to the relevant material. The Board found this to be a harmful error and remanded the case for a new decision that considers the Applicant's response.
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
Synopsis
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge’s decision states that Applicant did not submit a documentary response to the File of Relevant Material. However the file contains a response. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 06-07320.a1 DATE: 07/25/2007 DATE: July 25, 2007 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-07320
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 30, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis Decision at 2. See Memorandum for Administrative Judge from the Director, DOHA, dated November 21, 2006 (“The Applicant submitted information within the time period of 30 days after receipt of copy of the file of relevant material. Response was due on 11/30/2006.”) for that decision–security 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 January 31, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal submission as challenging whether he received the due process rights afforded him by the Directive. Finding error, we remand the case to the Judge. In her decision, the Judge states that, although provided a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), Applicant did not submit a documentary response in accordance with Directive ¶ E3.1.7. She therefore decided the case based on the information provided to her, without input from Applicant. However, the file contains Applicant’s response to the FORM, dated November 17, 2006, which was forwarded to Department Counsel on November 21, 2006.2 Therefore, we conclude that Applicant’s submission on appeal is meritorious. We conclude that the proper remedy is to remand the case to the Judge for a new decision, one which takes into account Applicant’s submission in response to the FORM.
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is REMANDED. 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