A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-03693.a1
Not statedDecided May 21, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board remanded the case for further processing after the applicant demonstrated that he submitted documentary evidence not included in the record. The remand was based on the need to consider this new evidence in the decision-making process.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline E Personal Conductraised
- Guideline F Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-04-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-02-29
- Decision date
- 2012-05-21 Appeal remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Remand for Consideration of New Evidence Not Included in the Record
- Security Concerns Under Guideline E and F
- Equitable Resolution of Appeal Process
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 E
Reading the 7 per allegation rows needs a free account.
7 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 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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has demonstrated that he submitted documentary evidence which was not made part of the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 10-03693.a1 DATE: 05/21/2012 DATE: May 21, 2012 In Re: ---------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-03693
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 11, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 supplement the hearing record. By means of his appeal brief, he has provided credible evidence that he submitted documentary evidence, which was received by DOHA within the prescribed period of time. See Directive ¶ E3.1.7. However, these documents 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board