CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-01038.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/22/2013
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 12-01038.a2) →See the hearing decision (Case 12-01038.h1) →See the hearing decision (Case 12-01038.h2) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: Braden M. Murphy
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 12-01038.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-01038.a1

Mar 22, 2013· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Representing himself, the applicant appealed the denial.

During the appeal process, it was discovered that the judge had not considered evidence submitted by the applicant. This oversight led to a remand of the case for further processing.

The outcome of the security clearance decision is currently none, as the case has been returned for reconsideration of the previously unexamined evidence.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 29, 2013Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey
Decision dateMar 22, 2013Appeal resulted in remand for further processing

Cite For

Remand for Consideration of Unconsidered Evidence
Jurisdictional and Due Process Issues in Security Clearance Appeals
Impact of Procedural Errors on 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 financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that evidence submitted was not considered by the Judge. The Board agreed that the evidence was not included in the record and remanded the case for further processing.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant asserted that evidence submitted was not considered by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that evidence submitted by the Applicant was not included in the record, which warranted remand for further processing.

On remand, the judge must

The case is remanded to the Judge for further processing regarding the evidence not included in the record.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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 F DIGEST: The parties agree that Applicant submitted evidence to DOHA which never reached the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 12-01038.a1 DATE: 03/22/2013 DATE: March 22, 2013 In Re: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-01038

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 15, 2012, DoD 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 written record. On January 29, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a preliminary matter, Applicant asserts matters from outside the record, as does Department Counsel. The gist of these assertions is that Applicant provided documents to the Judge that were not incorporated into the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we have considered new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-07667 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2013). In the case before us, Department Counsel acknowledges that Applicant submitted evidence that was received at DOHA but not forwarded to Department Counsel nor, consequently, to the Judge for inclusion in the record. Department Counsel states, and we agree, that the best resolution of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing. Other issues raised by Applicant’s appeal brief are not ripe for our consideration.

ORDER

The case is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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