Loading case…

ISCR 06-15770.a1: Guideline E security clearance hearing (2007) · CASE

ISCR Case 06-15770.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-15770.a1

unknownMar 26, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This case involved an applicant, representing herself, who faced security clearance concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) regarding access to sensitive information. The appeal board affirmed an adverse decision against the applicant.

The board's decision was based on trustworthiness concerns related to both personal conduct and financial considerations. The applicant did not object to the government's motion for an expedited remand.

Consequently, the appeal board remanded the case for further processing. No final outcome regarding the applicant's security clearance was provided in this decision.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

EappliedPersonal Conduct
FappliedFinancial Considerations

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 22, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2007Decision made by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
Decision dateMar 26, 2007Case remanded for further processing.

Cite for

Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline E and Guideline F
Administrative Remand Process
Impact of Applicant's Non-objection to Government Motions

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Unknown

The case was remanded for further processing, and no specific findings were made regarding the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The adverse decision was affirmed, but no details about the allegations were provided in the decision text.

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Unknown

The case was remanded for further processing, and the adverse decision was affirmed. No specific financial allegations were detailed in the decision text, and thus no findings were made regarding financial considerations under Guideline F.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: The non-appealing party filed a motion for expedited remand. The appealing party did not object. For reasons of economy the case is remanded for further processing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-15770.a1 DATE: 03/26/2007 DATE: March 26, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-15770 APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND APPEARANCES FOR GOVERNMENT Gina L Marine, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke access to automated information systems in ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions for Applicant. On August 22, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record. On February 28, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On March 21, 2007, Department Counsel filed a Motion for Expedited Remand. On March 23, 2007, Applicant filed a response to the government’s motion stating that she had no objection. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case is 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