Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 08-10204

Not stated

Decided Oct 6, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Hearing

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, represented by counsel, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) after a denial of security clearance by DOHA. The Appeal Board remanded the case for further processing due to new evidence that had not been considered by the Administrative Judge. The remand was deemed an equitable resolution to ensure all pertinent evidence is reviewed.

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2008-12-30
Answer filed
Hearing held
2009-07-23 Administrative Judge denied security clearance
Decision date
2009-10-06 Appeal Board remanded case

Cite for

  • Remand Due to New Evidence Not Considered by the Administrative Judge
  • Equitable Resolution in Security Clearance Cases
  • Importance of Reviewing All Pertinent Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions

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.

Create a free accountSign in

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

Full decision

Open original PDF

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

Decision text, by section

Appearances

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