A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-06978.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 21, 2016 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal board found that seven documents submitted by the applicant were not included in the record and remanded the case for reconsideration of these documents.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-03
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-11-21
- Decision date
- 2016-01-21
Cite for
- Due Process Considerations Regarding the Inclusion of Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
- Remand for Reconsideration of Additional Evidence Not Included in the Original Record
- Impact of Timely Submitted Documents on Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline F
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 additional documents submitted were not included in the record, raising due process issues. The Board agreed and remanded the case for further consideration of the documents.
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 F DIGEST: Applicant timely submitted seven documents that were not forwarded to the Judge. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 12-06978.a1 DATE: 01/21/2016 DATE: January 21, 2016 In Re: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-06978 APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 3, 2015, 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 hearing. On November 21, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has raised an issue of due process. She contends that she submitted additional documents to the Judge that were not included in the record. Applicant’s argument contains new evidence, which we generally cannot consider. However, we will consider new evidence that bears upon threshold issues of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04130 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2015). The record shows that the Judge gave Applicant two weeks following the hearing in which to submit additional evidence. Tr. at 67. Department Counsel states in the Reply Brief that Applicant did make a timely submission of seven documents that were not forwarded to the Judge. Department Counsel contends that remand is the appropriate remedy. We concur with this recommendation. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant submitted but that were not included in the record and then to issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive.
Order
The 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