CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06018.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06018.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06018.a1

Aug 9, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance case involved an applicant representing himself, facing denial under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal board did not issue a final outcome but instead remanded the case for reconsideration.

The remand was prompted by the applicant's assertion that certain documents he submitted were not included in the official record. This raised due process concerns regarding the handling of his response to the File of Relevant Material.

The board found the applicant's arguments significant enough to warrant further review, indicating that the initial process may have overlooked crucial information. The case was sent back for a re-evaluation of the evidence, specifically addressing the alleged omissions from the record.

Key Rule Quoted

“Under the facts of this case we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 19, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 17, 2017
Decision dateAug 9, 2017

Cite For

Due Process Concerns Regarding the Handling of Responses to the File of Relevant Material
Remand for Reconsideration of Documents Submitted by the Applicant
Issues Related to Guideline G and Guideline J in Security Clearance Cases.

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 concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J. The applicant claimed a due process violation regarding a statement in the decision about his response to the File of Relevant Material. The Board remanded the case for the Judge to consider additional documents submitted by the applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant claimed a due process violation regarding a statement in the Decision that he had not responded to the File of Relevant Material.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board remanded the case to allow the Judge to consider new documents submitted by the Applicant that were not part of the original record.

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealOfficial notice of facts

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 G; Guideline J DIGEST: Under the facts of this case we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-06018.a1 DATE: 08/09/2017 DATE: August 9, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06018

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 March 19, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has raised an issue of due process. He notes a statement in the Decision that he had not responded to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). He argues that he had provided a response within the time specified but that it did not make it into the record. In presenting his arguments, Applicant asserts matters from outside the record, which we generally cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, in the past we have considered 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). Applicant has submitted documents that he represents to be the ones he provided. One of the documents is a letter that, among other things, draws attention to an error in the FORM.1 Others address the legal consequences of Applicant’s security-significance conduct. Under the facts of this case we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief. Other issues that Applicant has raised in his brief are not ripe for consideration at this time.

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

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant notes that the introductory paragraph of the FORM cites a name other than Applicant’s as the subject of this adjudication. Applicant speculates that his own response might have been placed in another person’s file by mistake.