Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 12-01038.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 22, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal revealed that evidence submitted by the applicant was not considered by the judge, leading to a remand for further processing to address this oversight.

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2012-06-15
Answer filed
Hearing held
2013-01-29 Decision made by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey
Decision date
2013-03-22 Appeal 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

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.

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

Full decision

Open original PDF

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

Decision text, by section

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

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