A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-12627.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 18, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial concerns. The case was remanded for further processing after it was determined that a referenced document was not included in the record, raising issues about the judge's consideration of evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's financial concerns were the basis for the initial denial under Guideline F.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2013-03-06
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-06-27
- Decision date
- 2013-09-18 Case remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Issues Regarding the Consideration of Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
- Remand Procedures When Evidence Is Missing From the Record
- Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Leading to Security Clearance Denial
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 financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board remanded the case for further processing to include a missing document in the record.
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 F DIGEST: Applicant cited to a document at the beginning of the hearing, and Department Counsel advised that she would forward an electronic copy of it to the Judge for inclusion in the record. However, the document is not included among Applicant’s exhibits. The best resolution of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 11-12627.a1 DATE: 09/18/2013 DATE: September 18, 2013 In Re: ------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-12627
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 6, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 27, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. Applicant has presented matters from outside the record, the gist of which is that he provided a document to the Judge that was not incorporated into the record. As a general rule, we cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, in the past we have considered new evidence insofar as it raises questions of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01038 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2013). In the case before us, Applicant has attached to his brief a copy of a character reference submitted by a co-worker. He cited to this document at the beginning of the hearing, and Department Counsel advised that she would forward an electronic copy of it to the Judge for inclusion in the record. Tr. at 22, 27, 92. However, this document is not included among Applicant’s exhibits. In the Decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had submitted only one character reference, although the exhibit in question here would have been the second. We conclude that the best resolution of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing. Other issues raised by Applicant’s appeal brief are not ripe for our consideration.
Order
The case is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board