A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-00133.a1
Not statedDecided Aug 18, 2011 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The case was remanded for further processing after the applicant submitted additional documents that were not included in the original record. The remand allows the applicant to address the security concerns raised by the government.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2010-12-02
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2011-06-30
- Decision date
- 2011-08-18 Case 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.
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 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
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