CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02816.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02816.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02816.a1

Jul 24, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant appealed this denial, arguing that additional documents she submitted were not considered during the initial adjudication process.

The appeal board found merit in the applicant's due process concerns regarding the unreviewed documentation. Consequently, the board remanded the case for further review, instructing the lower authority to consider all submitted materials.

As a result, there is currently no final outcome on the applicant's security clearance status, as the case has been sent back for re-adjudication.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 31, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 27, 2017
Decision dateJul 24, 2017

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Remand for Further Processing Due to New Evidence
Issues Related to the Submission of Documentary Evidence in 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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant claimed to have submitted documents that were not included in the record. The Board remanded the case for further processing to address the issue of the missing documents.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant asserted she submitted documents to Department Counsel that were not included in the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant raised a prima facie case regarding the submission of documents that were not included in the record, necessitating a remand for further processing.

On remand, the judge must

Further processing consistent with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: In her appeal brief, Applicant asserted she submitted documents to Department Counsel on August 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the email that she sent to Department Counsel along with its five purported attachments. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-02816.a1 DATE: 07/24/2017 DATE: July 24, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02816

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 October 31, 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 May 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant submitted documentary evidence that was not included in the record. Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. At the hearing, the Judge left the record open until August 8, 2016, for Applicant to submit documents. Tr. at 56 and 64. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant did not submit any documents. In her appeal brief, Applicant asserted she submitted documents to Department Counsel on August 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the email that she sent to Department Counsel along with its five purported attachments. Applicant’s assertions on appeal constitute new evidence, which we are generally prohibited from considering. However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant’s assertions are sufficient to raise a prima facie case that she submitted documents to Department Counsel that either did not arrive at DOHA or were not sent to the Judge. We cannot resolve this issue based upon the facts before us. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-07667 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2013).

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board