CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-07725.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 10-07725.a1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/17/2012
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 10-07725.h1) →See the hearing decision (Case 10-07725.h2) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
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 denied by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) due to concerns under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) as outlined in the Department of Defense Directive 5220.6. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on October 26, 2011, detailed the security concerns that led to the denial. The applicant requested a decision based on the administrative record, which resulted in a denial by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera on June 26, 2012.
During the appeal process, the applicant raised the issue that a document potentially relevant to the case may not have been received by the Judge. The appeal brief included new evidence suggesting this possibility. The Appeal Board found that an equitable resolution would involve allowing the applicant to present the missing document to the Judge for consideration. Consequently, the case was remanded for further processing, ensuring that the appeal rights of both parties remained intact.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Unknown Outcome
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. 10-07725.a1

unknownAug 17, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This case involves an applicant, representing themselves, who faced a security clearance denial under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) by the Department of Defense. The applicant appealed this decision, arguing that a crucial document, potentially impacting the outcome, had not been considered.

The appeal process revealed the possibility of this missing evidence. Consequently, the case was remanded for further processing. This allows the applicant the opportunity to present the previously unconsidered document and for the Department of Defense to review it.

As of the current status, there has been no final outcome regarding the security clearance. The case is ongoing, pending the submission and review of the additional evidence.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 26, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2012
Decision dateAug 17, 2012Appeal remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Remand for Further Processing Due to Potential Missing Evidence
Security Concerns Under Guideline C
Applicant's Right to Present New Evidence on Appeal

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.