CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-00133.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-00133.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-00133.a1

unknownAug 18, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

This case involves an applicant, representing herself, who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The initial denial stemmed from financial issues that raised security concerns.

The case was subsequently remanded for further processing. This decision was made after the applicant submitted additional documents that had not been part of the original record.

The remand provides the applicant with an opportunity to address the specific security concerns previously identified by the government. As of the current status, there has been no final outcome regarding the security clearance decision.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2011
Decision dateAug 18, 2011Case remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Remand for Further Processing Due to Additional Evidence Submitted
Consideration of Documents Not Included in the Original Record
Financial Considerations 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.

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 submitted documents in response to the FORM that were not included in the record. Case remanded to the Judge for further processing. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 10-00133.a1 DATE: 08/18/2011 DATE: August 18, 2011 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-00133

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 2, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the 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 decision on the written record. On June 30, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to reply to the File of Relevant Material. By means of her appeal brief, she has provided credible evidence that she submitted four letters, which were received by DOHA within the prescribed period of time. See Directive ¶ E3.1.7. However, these letters were not made part of the record. In his reply brief, Department Counsel states that expedited remand is the most equitable resolution of this case. We concur. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing. Nothing contained in 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board