CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-02220.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-02220.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02220.a1

Aug 12, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This security clearance case involved an applicant, represented by counsel, facing concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial adverse decision was appealed.

The Appeal Board determined that the record was incomplete, which prevented a thorough appellate review of the case. Consequently, the Board remanded the decision, requiring further development of the record.

As of the current review, there has been no final outcome regarding the applicant's security clearance.

Key Rule Quoted

“Without a complete record the Board cannot perform appellate review.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 5, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 11, 2010
Decision dateAug 12, 2010

Cite For

Remand Due to Incomplete Record for Appellate Review
Issues Under Guideline B and Guideline F
Necessity of Complete Documentation for 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.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B and Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board remanded the case due to the absence of key exhibits from the record, preventing proper appellate review.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantNot reached
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was claimed to be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board could not perform appellate review due to the incomplete record, necessitating a remand for reconstruction of the record.

On remand, the judge must

Reconstruct the record in consultation with the parties and return the case file to the Board for processing of Applicant’s appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F DIGEST: Without a complete record the Board cannot perform appellate review. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 09-02220.a1 DATE: 08/12/2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-02220

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 November 5, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 11, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we remand the case. As a preliminary issue, we note that the record does not contain Government Exhibits 1-7, the documents submitted by Department Counsel and admitted at the hearing. Tr. at pp. 19-23. Additionally, the record does not contain Applicant’s Exhibits I through N, which were submitted by Applicant and admitted at the hearing. Tr. at pp. 27-31. Without a complete record we cannot perform appellate review. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge for the purpose of reconstructing the record in consultation with the parties. Upon completion of that task, the case file should be returned to the Board for processing of Applicant’s appeal in accordance with the Directive.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board