CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01354.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01354.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01354.a1

May 13, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant representing herself, facing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The initial decision did not include all evidence submitted by the applicant in the record.

The appeal board identified this omission and determined that the applicant's evidence was not properly considered. Consequently, the board remanded the case for a new decision.

The purpose of the remand is to ensure that all submitted evidence is included in the record and fully considered before a final determination is made regarding the applicant's security clearance. No final outcome has been reached at this stage.

Key Rule Quoted

“Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that she submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-05302 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 29, 2017)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2019Decision issued by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera
Decision dateMay 13, 2019Appeal decision remanding the case

Cite For

Due Process Considerations Regarding Evidence Submission
Remand for Reconsideration of Evidence Not Included in the Record
Prima Facie Showing of Missing Evidence 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 a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that evidence she submitted was not included in the record. The Board found merit in this claim and remanded the case for further consideration of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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 contends that she submitted evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that Applicant made a prima facie showing that she submitted evidence not included in the record, warranting a remand for a new decision.

Other

On remand, the judge must

Consider the evidence that Applicant attempted to submit prior to the close of the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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: Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that she submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a new decision. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 18-01354.a1 DATE: 05/13/2019 DATE: May 13, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01354

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 21, 2018, 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 administrative record. On February 28, 2019, after considering the record, 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 contends that she submitted evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although this is new evidence, we will consider it on the limited issue of due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05302 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 29, 2017). Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that she submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a new decision. Chief Department Counsel states that he has no objection to a remand under the facts of this case. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge to consider the evidence that Applicant attempted to submit prior to the close of the record. Other issues raised by Applicant in her brief are not ripe for consideration at this time.

ORDER

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