A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-11322.a1
Not statedDecided May 7, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but faced denial due to security concerns. The appeal raised the issue of a potentially missing document that could impact the case, leading to the remand for further processing to allow the applicant to present this document to the Judge.
Key rule quoted
“An equitable resolution of this case would be for Applicant to present the document to the Judge.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-06-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-02-18
- Decision date
- 2010-05-07
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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline F
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.
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 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
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