CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01209.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01209.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01209.a1

Aug 16, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant appealing the denial of his security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing himself, contended that the hearing transcript contained errors.

Upon review, the appeal board discovered that the submitted transcript included pages from a different individual's hearing. This significant error led the board to remand the case.

The purpose of the remand is to verify the accuracy of the transcript and implement corrective actions. The board explicitly ordered that the faulty transcript must not be considered in any subsequent decision-making process regarding the applicant's security clearance. No final outcome on the clearance itself has been reached.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Hearing Office should verify whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the hearing transcript and, if such action did not occur, take appropriate corrective action.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 8, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 2, 2017
Decision dateAug 16, 2017Appeal remanded due to transcript errors.

Cite For

Remand Due to Errors in Hearing Transcript
Verification of Transcript Accuracy Required
Corrective Action Mandated for Faulty Transcripts

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the hearing transcript contained errors, including pages from another person's hearing. The Board found this error warranted remand for verification and corrective action regarding the transcript. The decision was remanded for further proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant asserted that the hearing transcript he received contained errors, specifically that it included pages from another person's hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant received an incomplete and inaccurate hearing transcript, which warranted remand for corrective action and a new decision by the Judge.

Missing findings

On remand, the judge must

The Hearing Office should verify whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the hearing transcript and take appropriate corrective action. The Judge should issue a new decision that clarifies whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the transcript and ensures the faulty transcript was not considered in rendering his decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperProcedural 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: The Hearing Office should verify whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the hearing transcript and, if such action did not occur, take appropriate corrective action. Furthermore, the Judge should issue a new decision that clarifies whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the transcript and ensures the faulty transcript was not considered in rendering his decision. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-01209.a1 DATE: 08/16/2017 DATE: August 16, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01209

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 July 8, 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 2, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant asserts that the hearing transcript that he received contains errors. In his appeal brief, he provided a copy of the hearing transcript he received. It shows the cover sheet and next page are for his hearing, but the remainder of the transcript are pages from another person’s hearing. Applicant has demonstrated error that warrants remand. The Hearing Office should verify whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the hearing transcript and, if such action did not occur, take appropriate corrective action. Furthermore, the Judge should issue a new decision that clarifies whether Applicant received a complete and accurate copy of the transcript and ensures the faulty transcript was not considered in rendering his decision.

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