CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-15005.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-15005.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-15005.a1

Jan 24, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, faced the denial of a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The initial decision was based on evidence presented during the hearing.

However, the applicant appealed the denial, arguing that the judge failed to consider additional evidence submitted after the hearing concluded. This omission raised due process concerns regarding the thoroughness of the review.

As a result, the case was remanded for further processing. This means the decision was sent back for reconsideration, specifically to ensure all submitted evidence is properly reviewed before a final determination is made regarding the security clearance. No final outcome has been reached yet.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 12, 2013
Decision dateJan 24, 2014

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Appeals
Remand for Failure to Consider Evidence
Financial Concerns Under Guideline F

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· Full written decision

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant contended that the Judge did not consider all evidence, specifically evidence submitted after the hearing. The Board remanded the case for further processing to ensure all evidence is reviewed.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
The applicant argued that the Judge did not review evidence submitted after the hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board remanded the case because the Judge did not review evidence submitted by the applicant after the hearing, raising due process concerns.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant indicates that he was notified by Department Counsel after the decision was issued that the Judge had not reviewed evidence Applicant submitted after the hearing. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 11-15005.a1 DATE: 01/24/2014 DATE: January 24, 2014 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-15005

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 April 10, 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 November 12, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the evidence. 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 was notified by Department Counsel after the decision was issued that the Judge had not reviewed evidence Applicant submitted after the hearing.1 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). We conclude that the best resolution of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing.

ORDER

The case is REMANDED. Signed; Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Department Counsel did not file a brief in this case.