A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-02555.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 6, 2018 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal was based on the claim that evidence of paid-off accounts was not included in the record. The appeal board remanded the case for further processing, indicating the need for additional review of the evidence submitted by the applicant.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-12-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2018-03-14
- Decision date
- 2018-06-06 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that she submitted evidence of paid-off accounts shortly before the record closed, which was not included in the decision. The Board remanded the case for further processing to address the incomplete record.
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: 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
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