Loading case…

ISCR 16-02850.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal (2018) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-02850.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02850.a1

Mar 14, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, contested the denial of his security clearance. The denial was based on financial considerations under Guideline F.

The Appeal Board remanded the case to the lower court. This decision was made to allow the applicant to provide further documentation concerning his mortgage status, which had been a significant factor in the initial denial. The remand was prompted by the applicant's claim that he had previously submitted relevant evidence that was not included in the official record.

The outcome of the security clearance decision is currently none, as the case has been remanded for further review of the financial documentation.

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 14, 2018

Cite for

Remand for Additional Evidence Submission Under Guideline F
Consideration of Due Process in Appeals
Threshold Issues in Security Clearance Cases

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 contended that he submitted relevant documentation to the Judge that was not included in the record. The Board remanded the case to allow the applicant to submit the attachment from his email response to the Judge.

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 applicantRejected
Applicant contends that he submitted a response to the Judge’s October 18 email.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that Applicant made a prima facie showing that he sent an email to the Judge on October 30, 2017, that included an attachment about his mortgage account, which was within the time frame established by the Judge for submission of additional documentation. The case was remanded to allow the Judge to reopen the record and consider this evidence.

On remand, the judge must

Permit Applicant to submit to the Judge a copy of the attachment actually contained in his email response.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan (Chair)
James E. Moody
Charles C. Hale

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 contends that he did submit a response to the Judge’s October 18 email. He has attached to his brief a copy of an email from himself dated October 30, 2017, addressed to the Judge and to Department Counsel. We conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge to reopen the record and permit Applicant to submit to him a copy of the attachment actually contained in his email response. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-02850.a1 DATE: 03/14/2018 DATE: March 14, 2018 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02850

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 October 20, 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. Applicant contends that he submitted information to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. Applicant contends that he submitted evidence to the Judge about the status of his mortgage account, which was the largest of the three debts alleged in the SOR. In presenting his appeal he includes documents and information from outside the record. Although we generally do not consider new evidence on appeal, we will do so on threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01129 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017). The Judge reopened the record due to the time that had elapsed between Applicant’s response to the FORM and the assignment of the case to him. Applicant submitted some information, which the Judge admitted. On October 18, 2017, the Judge stated by email to Applicant that he would hold the record open until October 30, 2017, for Applicant to submit “[d]ocuments establishing that your mortgage is current . . . as well as any documents regarding the current status of the other 2 debts in the SOR.” Hearing Exhibit III. The Judge found that Applicant did not provide any further documentation. Decision at 2. Applicant contends that he did submit a response to the Judge’s October 18 email. He has attached to his brief a copy of an email from himself dated October 30, 2017, addressed to the Judge and to Department Counsel. This email states, inter alia, that Applicant was providing a copy of his “most recent mortgage statement.” On the page following this email, Applicant has attached a document from his mortgage lender. This document references payments made on a mortgage account that appears to be the one alleged in the SOR, insofar as the account number has the same last four digits as the mortgage debt disclosed in Applicant’s credit report, although four of these payments post-date Applicant’s October 30 email, of which two of them post-date the Judge’s Decision. Three of the payments reflected in the document are dated prior to the October 30 deadline. As it stands, Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he sent an email to the Judge on October 30, 2017, that included an attachment about his mortgage account. This was within the time frame that the Judge had established for the submission of additional documentation. Although this attachment obviously could not have included information beyond the date the email was sent, it may well have included information about the status of Applicant’s mortgage account as of October 30. We conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge to reopen the record and permit Applicant to submit to him a copy of the attachment actually contained in his email response. Other issues raised by Applicant are not ripe for adjudication at this time.

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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board