Loading case…

ISCR 23-02555: Guideline H security clearance appeal (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-02555unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02555

Jan 27, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This security clearance case, involving an applicant representing themselves, was initially denied under Guideline H due to drug involvement. The applicant timely requested a change of forum, leading the appeal board to remand the case for a hearing. This decision allows for further proceedings to address the Guideline H concerns.

The appeal board's action indicates that the initial denial was not a final determination, and the applicant will have an opportunity to present their case in a hearing. As of the current information, there has been no final outcome regarding the applicant's security clearance.

Procedural posture

Decision DateJan 27, 2025

Cite for

Remand for Hearing Due to Procedural Issues
Timely Request for Change of Forum
Mixed Outcome Allowing Further Proceedings

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 drug involvement. The Applicant argued that she had requested a hearing, but it was sent to the wrong address. The Board agreed to remand the case for a hearing, as the Government concurred with this resolution.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Garcia denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant asserted that she requested a hearing but it was sent to an incorrect address.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant made a timely request for a hearing, which was not received due to an incorrect address. The Government did not object to a remand for a hearing.

On remand, the judge must

Remand the case to the Judge for a hearing.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
Allison Marie
James B. Norman

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-----

)

ISCR Case No. 23-02555

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: January 27, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 27, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Along with her answer to the SOR, Applicant requested a decision based on the written record, without a hearing. She was provided with the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was given the opportunity to submit a response. After no response was received, the case was forwarded to DOHA’s Hearing Office for decision. On November 6, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Candace Garcia denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Applicant asserts that on May 10, 2024, she responded to the Government’s FORM and included, among other things, a request to convert the case to a hearing. Appeal Brief at 1. In support of this, her appeal brief contains a copy of her response. Although matters from outside the record are generally precluded from consideration on appeal, we have previously

considered new evidence when examining threshold issues such as due process or jurisdiction. Directive ¶ E3.1.29; e.g. ISCR Case No. 19-02119 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2020). Applicant’s assertion that she requested a hearing is such an instance. Applicant acknowledges that her request to convert her case to a hearing was sent to an incorrect DoD address and, therefore, not received by the Government or the Judge. However, the Government concurs that Applicant made a timely request for a change of forum and does not object to a remand of the case. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for a hearing. See ISCR Case No. 20-00388 at 2 - 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2021) (case remanded when request for extension was sent to the Consolidated Adjudications Facility rather than Department Counsel). Applicant has raised other issues that are not ripe for consideration at this time. The Board retains no continuing jurisdiction over a remanded decision. However, a decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28. to E3.1.35.

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02555 is REMANDED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board