CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-07657.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-07657.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-07657.a1

Jul 3, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant, represented by counsel, who was initially denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and subsequently under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The appeal process encountered a significant procedural issue.

The case was remanded because the record was incomplete. Specifically, the amendment to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and the applicant's response to it were missing.

This omission prevented a comprehensive review of the appeal, leading to the remand. No final outcome on the security clearance decision has been reached.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BraisedForeign Influence
Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 20, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 10, 2013
Decision dateJul 3, 2013Remanded 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· Full written decision

Remanded

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 further action to include necessary documentation. The appeal was not decided on its merits due to this issue.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantNot reached
The applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The record was incomplete, preventing a proper review of the appeal. The case was remanded for reconstruction of the record.

Incomplete record

On remand, the judge must

Include the amendment to the SOR and Applicant’s response in the record, in consultation with the parties.

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 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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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