CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-06978.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-06978.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-06978.a1

Jan 21, 2016· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The appeal board determined that seven documents submitted by the applicant were not included in the original record.

Consequently, the board remanded the case for reconsideration, instructing that these seven documents be properly reviewed. The outcome of this reconsideration is not yet determined.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 3, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 21, 2015
Decision dateJan 21, 2016

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· Full written decision

Remanded

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant contended that she submitted additional documents to the Judge that were not included in the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not consider seven documents submitted by the Applicant that were relevant to the case, which raised due process concerns. The Department Counsel agreed that remand was appropriate to allow the Judge to consider this evidence.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is 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.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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 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