CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01239.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01239.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01239.a1

Oct 23, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board determined that the applicant was denied due process because evidence he submitted was not included in the record.

The case was remanded for further processing to allow for the consideration of this new evidence, which pertains to both jurisdiction and due process. As a result, there has been no final outcome on the applicant's security clearance status at this stage.

Key Rule Quoted

“We will consider new evidence on matters of due process or jurisdiction.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 2, 2014Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateOct 23, 2014Appeal board remanded the case.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Remand for Consideration of New Evidence
Jurisdictional Issues in Security Clearance Appeals

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that he was denied due process because documents he submitted were not included in the record. The Board agreed and remanded the case for further processing to consider the new evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant claimed he was denied due process because documents he submitted were not included in the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant was denied due process due to the omission of submitted documents from the record, warranting a remand for further consideration.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must consider the new evidence submitted by the Applicant that was not included in the record.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: We will consider new evidence on matters of due process or jurisdiction. Applicant submitted evidence that did not make it into the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 14-01239.a1 DATE: 10/23/2014 DATE: October 23, 2014 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01239

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 May 20, 2014, 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 decision on the written record. On October 2, 2014, after considering the record, 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 issue on appeal: whether he had been denied due process in that he submitted documents that were not included in the record. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. In their respective briefs, both Applicant and Department Counsel assert matters from outside the record regarding Applicant’s response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). Department Counsel states that Applicant submitted matters to DOHA that, through administrative oversight, were not presented to the Judge. As a general matter, we cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we have considered new evidence that bears upon threshold issues of jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01038 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2013). Department Counsel recommends that we remand the case to the Judge for further processing. We agree with this recommendation.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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