A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-15005.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 24, 2014 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The appeal highlighted that the judge did not review evidence submitted after the hearing, leading to a remand for further processing based on due process considerations.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2013-04-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-11-12
- Decision date
- 2014-01-24
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
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.
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 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
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.