Loading case…

ISCR 08-11322.a1: Guideline F security clearance hearing (2010) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-11322.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11322.a1

unknownMay 7, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The clearance was initially denied due to security concerns related to financial considerations.

The applicant appealed this decision, raising a concern about a potentially missing document that could be relevant to his case. This document was not presented during the initial review.

As a result, the case was remanded for further processing. This allows the applicant the opportunity to present the potentially missing document to the Judge for consideration. The outcome of the security clearance decision is currently pending this further processing.

Key rule quoted

“An equitable resolution of this case would be for Applicant to present the document to the Judge.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 18, 2010
Decision dateMay 7, 2010

Cite for

Remand for Further Processing Due to Missing Evidence
Consideration of New Evidence in Appeals
Impact of Procedural Issues on Security Clearance Decisions

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Appeal

The case was remanded for further processing due to the possibility that the applicant submitted a document that did not reach the judge. The adverse decision regarding the applicant's security clearance was not finalized, and the applicant was given an opportunity to present additional evidence for consideration.

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises the possibility that he submitted a document that never reached the Judge. An equitable resolution of this case would be for Applicant to present the document to the Judge. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-11322.a1 DATE: 05/07/2010 DATE: May 7, 2010 In Re: ----------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-11322

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 19, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the Department Counsel did not file a reply brief. Applicant also submitted new evidence which, on its face, post-dates the Judge’s decision. Such new evidence is not admissible on remand. basis 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 hearing. On February 18, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. At the close of the hearing, the Judge held the record open for two weeks so that Applicant might submit documentation in support of his case for mitigation. Tr. at 46. However, when the Judge issued his decision, he stated that Applicant neglected to submit anything. Decision at 2. On April 5, 2010, Applicant filed an appeal brief containing new evidence that raised the possibility that Applicant submitted a document which never reached the Judge. We conclude that an equitable resolution of this case would be for Applicant to present the document to the Judge. Accordingly, the case is 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 Chairperson, 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