A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-06095.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 10, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, serving overseas, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to financial considerations. He claimed that documents submitted for his security clearance were not received by DOHA, leading to an adverse decision. The case was remanded for further consideration of new evidence regarding due process.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-04-23
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2016-02-19 decision on written record
- Decision date
- 2016-05-10 remanded 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant claimed that documents he submitted were not received by DOHA. The Board remanded the case for the Administrative Judge to determine the admissibility of the evidence and to issue a new decision accordingly.
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: 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
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