CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01387.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01387.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01387.a1

Apr 24, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing herself, appealed the denial of her security clearance, which was based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant contested the Judge's findings and raised concerns about the inclusion of documentary evidence in the record.

The appeal resulted in the case being remanded for further processing. This decision was made due to an incomplete record and other issues identified during the appeal.

No final outcome regarding the security clearance denial has been reached at this stage, as the case requires additional processing.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 26, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 1, 2018
Decision dateApr 24, 2018Decision remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Issues of Incomplete Record Affecting Security Clearance Decisions
Remand for Further Processing Due to Procedural Errors
Consideration of Documentary Evidence in Appeals 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 contended that documentary evidence submitted post-hearing was not included in the record and that the Judge made erroneous findings regarding her background. The Board remanded the case for further processing due to these concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in making findings of fact about her education record and history of employment.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant states that she 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 record was incomplete regarding the Applicant's post-hearing submissions and other factual findings made by the Judge. The best resolution was to remand the case for further processing.

Incomplete record

On remand, the judge must

Remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive.

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 DIGEST: 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 14 days for either party to submit additional matters. In the decision, the Judge indicated that neither party submitted additional matters. In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she submitted additional matters before the deadline, which were received by Department Counsel and forwarded to the Judge. She also notes the decision does not refer to any of those additional matters. We are unable to identify any post-hearing matters in the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 17-01387.a1 DATE: 04/24/2018 DATE: April 24, 2018 In Re: --------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01387

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 May 26, 2017, 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 February 1, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 14 days for either party to submit additional matters. Tr. at 112-113. In the decision, the Judge indicated that neither party submitted additional matters. In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she submitted additional matters before the deadline, which were received by Department Counsel and forwarded to the Judge. She also notes the decision does not refer to any of those additional matters. We are unable to identify any post-hearing matters in the record.1 Applicant also contends the Judge erred in making findings of fact about her education record, history of employment, and that her stepfather testified at the hearing. See Decision at 4. For example, in the appeal brief, she states that she does not have a stepfather. 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. 1 In her appeal brief, Applicant did not provide copies of the documents that were supposedly contained in her post-hearing submission. However, she did present some documents post-dating the Judge’s decision that she refers to as “new evidence.” Appeal Brief at 1.

ORDER

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