A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-01980,a2
Not statedDecided Jun 29, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, sought a security clearance but faced denials under Guidelines B, C, and M due to security concerns. The case was remanded for further consideration of additional evidence that was not fully reviewed by the judge. The outcome was a remand for further processing without a final decision on the merits.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 6 Foreign Influenceraised
- AG ¶ 7 Foreign Preferenceraised
- AG ¶ 8 Use of Information Technology Systemsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-11-14
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-03-24
- Decision date
- 2009-06-29 remanded for further consideration
Cite for
- Remand for Consideration of Additional Evidence Not Previously Reviewed
- Security Concerns Under Multiple Guidelines
- Pro Se Representation 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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline C
Reading the 6 per allegation rows needs a free account.
6 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline M
Reading the 8 per allegation rows needs a free account.
8 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C; Guideline M DIGEST: The Board’s April 16, 2009 decision remanded the case for the Judge to consider additional evidence. The additional evidence consisted of four pages: two pages from April and two pages from February 2009. The Judge’s Remand Decision states that the new evidence is a two page document. The two pages from April are in the evidentiary file. However, the two pages from February are not in the file. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-01980,a2 DATE: 06/29/2009 DATE: June 29, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-01980
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 14, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed an appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Board remanded the case for consideration of additional evidence. On May 6, 2009, Judge Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed an appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a threshold issue, the Board notes that in its April 16, 2009 decision the Board remanded the case for the Judge to consider additional evidence. The additional evidence that had been presented to the Board consisted of four pages: two pages from April 1, 2009 and two pages from February 2009. The Judge’s Remand Decision states explicitly that the new evidence is a two page document. The two pages from April 1, 2009 are in the evidentiary file. However, the two pages from February are not in the evidentiary file. There is no statement in the Judge’s decision nor any indication in the evidentiary file as to how the two pages were delivered to the Judge. Nor is there any indication that she ever saw or considered the two pages from February 2009. Accordingly, 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board