A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-07725.a1
Not statedDecided Aug 17, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing themselves, faced security clearance denial under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) due to concerns raised by the Department of Defense. The appeal highlighted a potential missing document that could impact the decision, leading to the case being remanded for further processing to allow the applicant to present this evidence.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-10-26
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-06-26
- Decision date
- 2012-08-17 Appeal 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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline C
Reading the 6 per allegation rows needs a free account.
6 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 C DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises the possibility that Applicant submitted a document which never reached the Judge. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 10-07725.a1 DATE: 08/17/2012 DATE: August 17, 2012 In Re: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-07725
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 October 26, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the administrative record. On June 26, 2012, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s decision states that Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). Decision at 2. Applicant filed an appeal brief containing new evidence that raised the possibility that Applicant submitted a document which never reached the Judge. We conclude that an equitable resolution of this case would be for Applicant to present the document to the Judge. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Judge for further processing. Nothing about 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