CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01138.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01138.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01138.a1

Sep 19, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance case involved an applicant who represented himself and faced denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The issues arose after the applicant departed a contractor position.

During the appeal process, a jurisdictional question emerged concerning the applicant's current employment status. This specific point was deemed significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Consequently, the case was remanded for additional fact-finding solely on the matter of the applicant's employment status. No final outcome on the security clearance denial itself has been reached.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

FraisedFinancial Considerations
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 3, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 5, 2016Decision on the written record
Decision dateSep 19, 2016Remanded for further fact-finding

Cite For

Jurisdictional Issues Regarding Employment Status Affecting Doha's Authority
Remand for Additional Fact-finding on Jurisdictional Matters
Consideration of New Evidence Related to Jurisdictional Issues

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 applicant appealed the denial of his security clearance, raising a jurisdictional issue regarding DOHA's authority to decide his case based on his employment status. The Board remanded the case for additional fact-finding on this jurisdictional issue.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant raised a jurisdictional issue regarding DOHA's authority to decide his case.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the jurisdictional issue raised by the applicant requires additional fact-finding, which the Board cannot perform. Therefore, the case is remanded for further proceedings.

On remand, the judge must

Reopen the record to enable the parties to present evidence regarding applicant’s employment status as it bears upon the issue of DOHA jurisdiction and for the Judge to make findings and conclusions on this matter.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant raised a jurisdictional issue that requires additional fact finding. We do not have authority to engage in fact finding. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 15-01138.a1 DATE: 09/19/2016 DATE: September 19, 2016 In Re: -----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-01138

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 August 3, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 5, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant contends that he left his job as a contractor and is now employed as a Government civilian. Accordingly, he has raised an issue of whether DOHA has retained jurisdiction to decide his case under the Directive. Applicant’s brief makes assertions from outside the record (that he was not a Defense contractor on the date the decision was issued), and we can consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). As a general rule, if an applicant’s need for access to classified information terminates, then DOHA processing of his case must cease, although there are exceptions. Directive ¶ 4.4. In the case before us, resolution of the jurisdictional issue requires additional fact-finding, which we have no authority to do. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge to reopen the record to enable the parties to present evidence regarding applicant’s employment status as it bears upon the issue of DOHA jurisdiction and for the Judge to make findings and conclusions on this matter. All other issues raised in Applicant’s brief are not ripe for adjudication. The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board