CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06095.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06095.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06095.a1

May 10, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involved an overseas applicant whose security clearance was challenged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant contended that DOHA had not received documents he submitted for his security clearance, which he believed led to an adverse decision.

The case was subsequently remanded for further consideration. This remand was specifically to allow for the review of new evidence related to due process concerns raised by the applicant.

Ultimately, no final outcome regarding the security clearance decision was provided in the verified facts.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 23, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2016decision on written record
Decision dateMay 10, 2016remanded for further consideration

Cite For

Issues Related to Due Process in Security Clearance Cases
Consideration of New Evidence in Remand Situations
Financial Considerations 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· Full written decision

Remanded

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant claimed that he submitted documents that were not received by DOHA. The Board remanded the case for the Administrative Judge to determine whether to admit the evidence and to issue a new decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant asserted that documents he submitted were not received.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board remanded the case to allow the Administrative Judge to consider evidence that the Applicant claimed was not received and to issue a new decision accordingly.

On remand, the judge must

Determine whether to admit the evidence that Applicant attempted to present and issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: Applicant is serving overseas and states that he submitted documents which were not received at DOHA. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 14-06095.a1 DATE: 05/10/2016 DATE: May 10, 2016 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-06095

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 April 23, 2015, 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 February 19, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence, which, as a general rule, we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04959 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). Applicant asserts that he sent documents in response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) both by email and by regular mail, yet they did not make it into the record. He states that he did so because he was serving overseas in the Middle East and was advised that there might be problems with the mail. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to determine whether or not to admit the evidence that Applicant attempted to present and then to issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board