A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 09-02220.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 12, 2010 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, faced security clearance issues under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Appeal Board remanded the adverse decision due to an incomplete record, which impeded proper appellate review.
Key rule quoted
“Without a complete record the Board cannot perform appellate review.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2009-11-05
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2010-06-11
- Decision date
- 2010-08-12
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
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 an incomplete record, preventing proper appellate review.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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