Loading case…

ISCR 15-08847.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-08847.a1unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08847.a1

Sep 8, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, faced the denial of a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant appealed this decision.

During the appeal process, the board determined that the applicant had made a good-faith effort to provide additional evidence intended to mitigate the financial concerns. This new documentation was not fully considered in the initial denial.

Consequently, the appeal board did not issue a final outcome on the clearance but instead remanded the case. This action requires the lower authority to conduct a further review of the newly submitted documents to properly assess their impact on the financial considerations.

Key rule quoted

“We will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process.”
ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedJun 17, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 6, 2017
Decision dateSep 8, 2017Decision remanded for further review.

Cite for

Good-faith Effort to Submit Additional Evidence Under Guideline F
Remand for Consideration of New Evidence
Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance 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 argued that he submitted additional evidence that was not considered. The Board found that the applicant made a good-faith effort to request more time and remanded the case for the Judge to consider the new documents.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant claimed that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that Applicant made a good-faith effort to request additional time and had documents that he believed would assist in demonstrating mitigation. The case was remanded for the Judge to consider these documents.

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must consider the documents Applicant has attached to his brief and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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: We conclude that Applicant made a good-faith effort to request additional time and that he had documents that he believed would assist in demonstrating mitigation. We conclude that the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to consider the documents. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-08847.a1 DATE: 09/08/2017 DATE: September 8, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08847

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 June 17, 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 June 6, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As a preliminary matter, Applicant claims that he submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although his assertions constitute 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). The transcript shows that the Judge left the record open for a month after the hearing to enable Applicant to submit additional evidence. The Judge advised Applicant that he could ask for additional time if needed. Tr. at 41. However, the Judge stated in the Decision that Applicant submitted nothing. Attached to Applicant’s appeal brief is email traffic between himself and the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) in which he requests an extension of time to submit documents. Although he should have sent this request to the Judge, Applicant may well have misunderstood the relationship between the DoD CAF and DOHA. Under the circumstances, we conclude that Applicant made a good-faith effort to request additional time and that he had documents that he believed would assist in demonstrating mitigation. We conclude that the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to consider the documents Applicant has attached to his brief and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive. Other issues raised by Applicant’s brief are not ripe for adjudication at this time.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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