A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-05691.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Dec 4, 2017 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The Department of Defense initially denied her request, citing financial issues, but the appeal resulted in a remand for further processing due to the applicant's submission of additional evidence that was not considered in the original hearing. The remand was based on due process grounds, allowing for the inclusion of the new evidence.
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2016-04-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2017-09-13
- Decision date
- 2017-12-04 Appeal 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
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.
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 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
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