A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-10204.a1
Not statedDecided Oct 6, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, appealed a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The appeal raised credible allegations that evidence submitted by the applicant did not reach the original judge, leading to a remand for further processing to ensure all pertinent evidence is considered.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-12-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2009-07-23 Administrative Judge denied request for security clearance.
- Decision date
- 2009-10-06 Case remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Remand for Further Processing Due to Unconsidered Evidence
- Credibility of Applicant's Allegations Regarding Evidence Submission
- Administrative Economy in Handling Appeals
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 F
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 F DIGEST: Applicant made credible allegation that he had submitted evidence which never reached the Judge. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 08-10204.a1 DATE: 10/06/2009 DATE: October 6, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-10204
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 30, 2008, DOHA 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 July 23, 2009, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. On September 2, 2009, Applicant filed an appeal brief which also relied on new evidence that raised the possibility that Applicant submitted evidence which never reached the Judge. On September 8, 2009, Department Counsel filed a response to Applicant’s brief stating that under the facts of this case remand would be an 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: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board