CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02555.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02555.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02555.a1

Jun 6, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from concerns regarding her financial history.

The applicant appealed this decision, asserting that evidence demonstrating the resolution of her outstanding accounts had not been properly incorporated into the record during the initial review. The appeal board considered this claim and determined that further action was warranted.

Consequently, the board remanded the case for additional processing. This action indicates that the submitted evidence regarding the paid-off accounts requires further review and consideration before a final security clearance determination can be made. No final outcome has been reached at this stage.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 3, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 14, 2018
Decision dateJun 6, 2018Appeal resulted in remand for further processing.

Cite For

Remand for Further Processing Due to Incomplete Record
Consideration of Additional Evidence in Appeals
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 argued that she submitted evidence of paid-off accounts that was not included in the record. The Board remanded the case for further processing to address the incomplete record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant contended that the record was incomplete due to missing evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the record was incomplete and determined that remanding the case for further processing was the best resolution.

On remand, the judge must

Further processing consistent with the Directive.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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: In her appeal brief, Applicant states that three days before the record closed she submitted receipts showing accounts had been paid off. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-02555.a1 DATE: 06/06/2018 DATE: June 6, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02555

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 December 3, 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 hearing. On March 14, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant states that she submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. At the hearing, the Judge left the record open for 15 days for Applicant to submit additional matters. Tr. at 64-65. In the decision, the Judge noted that she did not submit any additional matters. In her appeal brief, Applicant states that three days before the record closed she submitted receipts showing accounts had been paid off. Given her contention that the record is incomplete, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. Applicant has raised other issues that are not ripe for consideration at this time.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board