CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03025.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03025.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03025.a1

Oct 28, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing herself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The initial decision was based on concerns related to the applicant's financial history.

Upon appeal, the applicant raised due process concerns, specifically alleging that certain documents relevant to her case were not included in the official record. The appeal board reviewed these concerns and determined that further processing was necessary to address the alleged omissions.

Consequently, the appeal board remanded the case. This action requires the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the case, ensuring all relevant documentation is properly considered and included in the record before a final determination on the security clearance can be made. No final outcome on the clearance has been reached.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 25, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 3, 2015Decision issued by Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan.
Decision dateOct 28, 2015Appeal 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· Full written decision

Remanded

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantError sustained
The applicant claimed she was denied due process because documents she 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 processing.

Other

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: 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

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 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