A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 12-07657.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 3, 2013 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, represented by counsel, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and later Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The case was remanded due to an incomplete record, specifically lacking the amendment to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and the Applicant's response, preventing a full review of the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- Guideline B Foreign Influenceraised
- Guideline E Personal Conductraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-08-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-04-10
- Decision date
- 2013-07-03 Remanded due to incomplete record.
Cite for
- Remand Due to Incomplete Record for Security Clearance Cases
- Importance of Including All Amendments to the SOR in the Record
- Need for a Complete Record for Proper Review of Appeals
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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B and an amendment under Guideline E. The Board found the record incomplete and remanded the case for reconstruction to include necessary documents. The Board did not reach the merits of the appeal due to this issue.
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 DIGEST: The record is incomplete. We remand the case for purpose of reconstructing the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 12-07657.a1 DATE: 07/03/2013 DATE: July 3, 2013 In Re: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-07657
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Christopher Graham, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 20, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On March 5, 2013, DOHA amended the SOR to add concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On April 10, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. As a preliminary matter, we note that the record does not contain a copy of the amendment to the SOR, nor does it contain Applicant’s response. Without a complete record we cannot perform our review of Applicant’s appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge for the purpose of including the amendment to the SOR and Applicant’s response in the record, in consultation with the parties. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-03760 (App. Bd. Jul. 16, 2010). Upon completion of that task, the case file should be returned to the Appeal Board for processing of Applicant’s appeal 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