CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-01980.a1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 08-01980.a1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date4/16/2009
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.a3) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.h3) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James F. Duffy
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) due to security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on November 14, 2008, outlined the basis for the denial, prompting the applicant to request a hearing.
During the hearing held on March 24, 2009, the applicant presented their case, but the Administrative Judge, Erin C. Hogan, ultimately denied the security clearance. Following the decision, the applicant filed a timely appeal, citing evidence that had not been included in the original record. The Department Counsel acknowledged this oversight and recommended an expedited remand to allow the Administrative Judge to consider the new evidence.
The Appeal Board, recognizing the importance of the omitted evidence, remanded the case for further processing. The Board's decision emphasized that this action would not prejudice the appeal rights of either party, allowing for a fair reassessment of the applicant's security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Moot
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Moot
- Guideline MUse of Information Technology · Moot
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-01980.a1

unknownApr 16, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· hearing

Summary

This case involves an applicant representing himself in a security clearance denial. The denial was based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology).

The applicant's case was remanded, meaning it was sent back for further consideration. This decision allows the judge to review new evidence submitted by the applicant that was not part of the initial record.

The outcome of the security clearance decision is currently none, as the case is still undergoing further processing following the remand.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 14, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 24, 2009
Decision dateApr 16, 2009case remanded for further processing

Cite For

Remand for Consideration of New Evidence Not Included in the Record
Security Clearance Denial Under Multiple Guidelines
Pro Se Representation 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.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.