A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-08812.a1
Not statedDecided May 11, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant claimed that documents he submitted did not reach the Judge, leading to the adverse decision. The case was remanded for further processing to consider the applicant's response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM).
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-12-31
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-04-10 Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2009-05-11 Case remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Remand for Consideration of Additional Evidence Not Previously Included in the Record
- Security Concerns Under Guideline H and Guideline E
- Applicant's Right to Appeal Based on Procedural Issues
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 7 per allegation rows needs a free account.
7 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline H
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant asserts that he submitted documents which never reached the Judge. Department counsel does not contest the matter. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-08812.a1 DATE: 05/11/2009 DATE: May 11, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-08812
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Tom Coale, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 31, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 10, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazarro denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal consists solely of his claim that he had submitted documents in response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not reach the Judge and which were not included in the record. He requests an expedited remand of his case to enable the Judge to consider his response to the FORM. By reply brief, Department Counsel does not oppose this course of action. Accordingly, 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board