A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-05217.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 4, 2012 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to admitted allegations. The appeal board found that the judge failed to consider the applicant's detailed explanations in response to the Statement of Reasons, leading to the remand of the adverse decision for reevaluation.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-07-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2012-02-22
- Decision date
- 2012-05-04 Appeal board remanded the case.
Cite for
- Failure to Consider Applicant's Explanations in Response to SOR
- Remand for Reevaluation of Adverse Decision
- Presumption That Judge Considered All Evidence Rebutted
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on Guideline E. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider his explanations for the admitted allegations. The Board found that the Judge's comments raised doubts about whether all evidence was considered and remanded the case for a new decision.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge’s decision states that Applicant’s response to the SOR contain admissions but no explanations. The presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence is rebutted with regard to Applicant’s explanations included in the SOR response. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 11-05217.a1 DATE: 05/04/2012 DATE: May 4, 2012 In Re: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-05217
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 July 28, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 22, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a threshold issue, we note Applicant’s contention in his appeal brief that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence. Applicant included a copy of his response to the SOR, in which he admitted the allegations and provided detailed explanations for his conduct. However, in his Summary of Pleadings, the Judge stated the following: “In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the allegations. He provided no explanations.” Decision at 2. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03025 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2012). However, in this case, the Judge’s comment raises in a reasonable mind the belief that the Judge did not consider Applicant’s explanations included in the SOR response. Accordingly, Applicant has rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. We remand the case to the Judge for a new decision, after which the case will be processed in accordance with the Directive.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REMANDED. 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