CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00599.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00599.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00599.a1

Mar 7, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant's appeal of a security clearance denial, which was based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, contended that new documentary evidence relevant to his financial situation had not been included in the initial record.

The appeal board reviewed the case and determined that the new evidence warranted further consideration. Consequently, the board remanded the case, instructing that the new documentation be included and reconsidered.

The outcome of the appeal was a remand, meaning the case was sent back for re-evaluation rather than a final decision on the clearance itself. This decision was signed by multiple judges.

Key Rule Quoted

“Although his assertions constitute new evidence, which we are generally not permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process.”
— ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 15, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 28, 2017Decision issued by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
Decision dateMar 7, 2018Appeal board remanded the case.

Cite For

Consideration of New Evidence on Threshold Issues Such as Due Process
Remand for Reconsideration of Evidence Not Included in the Record
Mixed Outcome Decisions Involving Multiple Judges

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 evidence that was not included in the record. The Board decided to remand the case for the Judge to consider this evidence and issue a new decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — 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 claimed that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant's claims regarding missing documentary evidence warranted a remand for further consideration.

Other

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is to consider the documents attached to Applicant’s brief and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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 claims that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although his assertions constitute new evidence, which we are generally not permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-00599.a1 DATE: 03/07/2018 DATE: March 07, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00599

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 September 15, 2016, 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 November 28, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a preliminary matter, Applicant claims that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although his assertions constitute new evidence, which we are generally not permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). In February 2017, Applicant submitted a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On November 6, 2017, due to the period that elapsed since Applicant submitted his FORM response, the Judge sent an email to the parties reopening the record until November 20, 2017, to permit Applicant the opportunity to submit additional matters. On November 7, 2017, Applicant responded by indicating that he intended to submit a couple of items. In the Decision, the Judge noted that Applicant neither responded further nor submitted additional information. In his Appeal Brief, Applicant provided a copy of an email that he purportedly sent to the Judge and Department Counsel on November 20, 2017. This email contained a narrative statement and an attached file. Applicant also provided copies of the documents that were supposedly contained in the attached file.1 In a reply brief, Department Counsel indicated that he does not oppose a remand. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to consider the documents attached to Applicant’s brief and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive. 1 None of these documents post-date November 20, 2017.

ORDER

The Decision 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board