CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03905.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03905.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03905.a1

Sep 18, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant, representing himself, who faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The initial decision was based on financial concerns, but the case was remanded for further review.

The remand was ordered because evidence submitted by the applicant was not initially considered. This highlights the importance of due process, ensuring all relevant documentation is thoroughly reviewed before a final determination is made.

The outcome of the case is currently none, as it has been sent back for additional consideration of the unreviewed evidence.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 7, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 23, 2015Decision issued by Judge Martin H. Mogul
Decision dateSep 18, 2015Case remanded for further consideration

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Importance of Reviewing All Relevant Evidence
Remand for Failure to Consider Timely Submitted Evidence

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 security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider evidence submitted, which led to a denial of due process. The Board remanded the case for further consideration of the evidence and to ensure the record is complete.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant was denied due process regarding the consideration of evidence submitted.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not consider evidence submitted by the Applicant, which affected the due process of the case. The remand allows for a complete review of the record and consideration of all relevant documents.

Ignored material evidenceOther

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must consider all documents submitted by the Applicant prior to the June 23, 2015 Decision and ensure the record is complete.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: The file may be incomplete and the Judge did not consider evidence Applicant submitted. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 14-03905.a1 DATE: 09/18/2015 DATE: September 18, 2015 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03905

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 October 7, 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 June 23, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 he was denied due process and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. We note Applicant’s argument that he submitted a Response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that the Judge did not take into account in analyzing the case. This argument includes matters from outside the record, which we are generally precluded from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, in the past we have considered new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). In this case, Applicant submitted an email which is in the file but which cited to documents (pertinent to his delinquent tax debts) that are not in the file. In a footnote to the Decision, the Judge stated that he did not consider Applicant’s submission because it was not timely. Although the correspondence was sent and received after the 30-day window for Applicant to have replied to the FORM (Directive ¶ E3.1.7), Department Counsel recommends that we remand the case to the Judge to consider Applicant’s submission, “in the best interest of all parties.” Reply Brief at 5. Among other things, Applicant asserts that he acted in reliance upon assurances from DOHA personnel in submitting his late response. Given the state of the record we would have to remand in any case. For reasons limited strictly to the circumstances of this case, we remand the case to the Judge to ensure that the record contains all documents which were actually submitted to him and for him to consider the documents that were submitted prior to his June 23, 2015, Decision. The other issue raised by Applicant is not ripe for our consideration.

ORDER

The Case is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board