A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-03025.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 28, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal raised due process concerns regarding documents not included in the record, leading the appeal board to remand the case for further processing to address these issues.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2014-07-25
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-09-03 Decision issued by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
- Decision date
- 2015-10-28 Appeal board remanded the case.
Cite for
- Due Process Concerns Regarding Inclusion of Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
- Remand for Further Processing When Due Process Issues Are Identified
- Jurisdictional Considerations 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that she was denied due process because documents she submitted were not included in the record. The Board agreed and remanded the case for further processing.
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: Both parties refer to information outside the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 14-03025.a1 DATE: 10/28/2015
DATE: October 28, 2015 In Re: ---------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03025
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 July 25, 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 September 3, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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 she had been denied due process in that she 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