CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05691.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date12/4/2017
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 15-05691.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 15-05691.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, William S. Fields, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 15-05691.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05691.a1

Dec 4, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F, which addresses financial considerations. The Department of Defense initially denied her clearance request due to identified financial issues.

The applicant appealed this denial, submitting additional evidence that had not been considered during the initial hearing. The appeal resulted in a remand of the case for further processing. This decision was based on due process grounds, allowing for the inclusion and consideration of the newly presented evidence.

The outcome of the remanded case is not specified in the provided facts.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 13, 2017
Decision dateDec 4, 2017Appeal decision remanded for further processing.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Appeals
Remand for Consideration of New Evidence
Financial Considerations 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 an Applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant claimed that she submitted additional evidence that was not included in the record. The Board remanded the case for further processing to consider this evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

New evidence offered (barred on appeal) — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant claimed that she submitted documentary evidence that was not included in the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant submitted evidence that was not considered in the original decision, warranting a remand for further processing.

On remand, the judge must

Further processing consistent with the Directive regarding the evidence submitted by the Applicant.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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 the decision, the Judge indicated that Applicant submitted no post-hearing matters. In her appeal brief, Applicant provided an email that she sent to Department Counsel on April 7, 2017. The email had a file attached that apparently contained a number of documents. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-05691.a1 DATE: 12/4/2017 DATE: December 4, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05691

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 April 20, 2016, 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 September 13, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant states that she submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although her assertion constitutes new evidence, which we are generally not permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). At the hearing, the Judge left the record open until February 28, 2017, for Applicant to submit additional matters. Tr. at 123. The deadline for submitting matters was later extended to April 10, 2017. In the decision, the Judge indicated that Applicant submitted no post-hearing matters. In her appeal brief, Applicant provided an email that she sent to Department Counsel on April 7, 2017. The email had a file attached that apparently contained a number of documents. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive.

ORDER

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