Loading case…

ISCR 10-07695.a1: Guideline B security clearance hearing (2012) · CASE

ISCR Case 10-07695.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-07695.a1

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

Summary

This case involves an applicant seeking a security clearance for employment with a Defense contractor. The applicant was unrepresented during the process.

The DOHA Appeal Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a security clearance because the applicant's need for access to classified information had ended. The applicant left her employment with the Defense contractor in January 2012, which occurred before the hearing took place.

Consequently, the Appeal Board reversed a previously favorable decision. No security clearance was granted. The disqualifying condition raised under Guideline B pertained to foreign influence.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

BraisedForeign Influence

Key rule quoted

“Actions pursuant to it shall cease upon termination of the applicant’s need for access to classified information.”
Directive ¶ 4.4.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 29, 2012
Decision dateSep 21, 2012

Cite for

Jurisdictional Issues Regarding Security Clearance After Employment Termination
Reversal of Favorable Decisions Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
Implications of Employment Status on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on Record

The case was vacated due to lack of jurisdiction as the applicant no longer required a security clearance after leaving her employment with a Defense contractor in January 2012. Consequently, all proceedings after that date were rendered void, and the judge's prior favorable decision was reversed.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 B DIGEST: Applicant left the employ of a Defense contractor in January 2012. Her need for a security clearance terminated prior to commencement of the hearing. Therefore, DOHA lacked jurisdiction. The Judge’s decision is reversed in the sense of that it is vacated and all proceedings after January 2012 in this case are rendered void. Favorable decision reversed. CASENO: 10-07695.a1 DATE: 09/21/2012 DATE: September 21, 2012 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-07695

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 December 7, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, the Judge’s decision is vacated. Applicant submitted her security clearance application (SCA) on March 19, 2009. She was seeking a clearance due to her employment by a Defense contractor. Applicant left the employ of the contractor in January 2012 and is unemployed. Tr. at 49-50, 55-56, and 63-67. The Directive provides that actions pursuant to it “shall cease upon termination of the applicant’s need for access to classified information,” with exceptions not pertinent to this case. Directive ¶ 4.4. Department Counsel contends on appeal that DOHA lacked jurisdiction to issue a decision in this case, because Applicant no longer needed a clearance through her former contractor employer. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the proceedings, including on appeal. ISCR Case No. 02-24227 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2003). In this case, the record demonstrates that Applicant’s requirement for a security clearance had terminated prior to the date of the hearing. Therefore, DOHA processing of the case should have terminated prior to the hearing. Reversal in the sense of vacating the decision and rendering void all proceedings in this case after that date is mandated under these circumstances to correct this error. See ISCR Case No. 05-04831 at 5 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2006) and ISCR Case No. 08-08860 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 2, 2010). Other issues raised by Department Counsel are rendered moot by this decision.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision to grant Applicant a security clearance is reversed. All DOHA processing in this case after January 23, 2012, shall be without legal effect. 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