A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 14-05412
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 15, 2015 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, appealed the denial of a trustworthiness designation based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The appeal raised due process issues regarding the exclusion of submitted documents from the record. The case was remanded for further processing to address these concerns.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2015-01-27
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2015-09-16
- Decision date
- 2015-10-15 Decision remanded for further processing.
Cite for
- Due Process Concerns Regarding the Inclusion of Evidence in the Record
- Remand for Further Processing When Due Process Issues Are Raised
- Guidelines Concerning Foreign Influence and Preference in Trustworthiness Determinations
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal raises the issue of whether documents she submitted were included in the record. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 14-05412,a1 DATE: 10/15/2015
DATE: October 15, 2015 In Re: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-05412
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Stephanie Hess, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On January 27, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 16, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether she had been denied due process in that she submitted documents that were not included in the record. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. In their respective briefs, both Applicant and Department Counsel assert matters from outside the record regarding Applicant’s response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). Department Counsel states that Applicant submitted matters to DOHA that, through administrative oversight, were not presented to the Judge. As a general matter, we cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we have considered new evidence that bears upon threshold issues of jurisdiction or due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01038 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2013). Department Counsel recommends that we remand the case to the Judge for further processing. We agree with this recommendation.
Order
The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board