Loading case…

ISCR 08-01980.a1: Guideline B security clearance hearing (2009) · CASE

Case record

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

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,a2) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-01980.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: James F. Duffy
Guidelines Evaluated
- BForeign Influence · Moot
- CForeign Preference · Moot
- MUse of Information Technology · Moot
Other decisions whose allegations most closely resemble this one’s. Similarity of the allegations only.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 08-01980.a1unknown

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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Appeal

The case was remanded for further consideration of evidence not included in the record. The adverse decision regarding the applicant's security clearance was not finalized, and no specific findings were made under Guideline B.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline C (Foreign Preference) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Appeal

The case was remanded for further consideration of evidence not included in the record. The adverse decision regarding the applicant's security clearance was not finalized, leaving the allegations under Guideline C unresolved.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Appeal

The case was remanded for further consideration of evidence not included in the record, which may relate to Guideline M concerns. The initial adverse decision was not finalized, and no specific findings were made regarding the allegations under Guideline M.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C; Guideline M DIGEST: Case remanded for Judge to consider evidence submitted but not included in the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-01980.a1 DATE: 04/16/2009 DATE: April 16, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-01980

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 14, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On April 1, 2009, Applicant filed a notice of appeal that explicitly relied on evidence that was not before the Judge. On April 14, 2009, Applicant filed an appeal brief which also relied on that evidence. On April 14, 2009, Department Counsel filed a response to Applicant’s brief stating that under the facts of this case expedited remand would be the equitable resolution to put the pertinent evidence before the Administrative Judge. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing. Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board