CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-03693.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 10-03693.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date5/21/2012
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 10-03693.h2) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was initially denied by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons issued on April 11, 2011, outlined the basis for the denial, prompting the applicant to request a hearing, which took place on February 29, 2012. Following the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul ruled against the applicant's request for a security clearance.
During the appeal process, the applicant provided credible evidence indicating that he had submitted additional documentary evidence that was not included in the original record. The Department Counsel acknowledged this oversight and recommended an expedited remand as a fair resolution. The Appeal Board agreed with this recommendation, leading to the remand of the case for further processing, ensuring that the applicant's appeal rights remained intact.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-03693.a1

unknownMay 21, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This case involves an applicant, represented by counsel, whose security clearance was initially denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant appealed this decision, asserting that relevant documentary evidence had been submitted but was not included in the original record.

Upon review, the appeal board found merit in the applicant's claim. Consequently, the board remanded the case for further processing. This remand was specifically ordered to ensure that the previously omitted documentary evidence could be properly considered and incorporated into the decision-making process regarding the applicant's security clearance.

As of the provided information, there has been no final outcome on the security clearance decision, as the case is still undergoing further processing following the remand.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct
Guideline FraisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 29, 2012
Decision dateMay 21, 2012Appeal 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.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.