CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01238.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date9/28/2017
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 16-01238.a2) →See the hearing decision (Case 16-01238.h2) →See the hearing decision (Case 16-01238.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome

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 16-01238.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01238.a1

Sep 28, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from financial issues, which the applicant claimed to have addressed by submitting a payment plan.

The applicant stated that this payment plan was included with his answer to the Statement of Reasons (SOR). However, the record showed no documents were attached to his submission.

The appeal did not result in a final outcome regarding the clearance itself. Instead, the case was remanded. The purpose of the remand was for the judge to reopen the record and specifically consider the applicant's claims regarding the missing payment plan documents.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 20, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant claimed to have submitted a payment plan.
Hearing heldJul 14, 2017Decision issued by Judge Leroy F. Foreman.
Decision dateSep 28, 2017Appeal remanded for further consideration.

Cite For

Remand for Consideration of Missing Documents Under Guideline F
Due Process Considerations Regarding Evidence Submission
Impact of Procedural Errors on Security Clearance Decisions

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 he had submitted a payment plan that was not included in the record. The Board remanded the case for the Judge to reopen the record and consider the claimed documents.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeroy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant claimed that he submitted documentary evidence that was not included in the record.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant's claim of missing documentary evidence warranted a remand to the Administrative Judge to consider the evidence and arguments from both parties.

On remand, the judge must

The Judge is to reopen the record and collect from the parties and consider as appropriate the documents which Applicant claims to have submitted.

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: In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated “See payment plan attached” in responding to the allegations. The Judge acknowledged Applicant’s statements about having a payment plan for both of those debts, but noted no documents were attached to his answer. In his appeal brief, Applicant provided a copy of a payment plan that predates the SOR and contends that he provided it with his SOR Answer. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-01238.a1 DATE: 09/28/2017 DATE: September 28, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01238

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 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 decision on the written record. On July 14, 2017, after considering the record, 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. 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). In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated “See payment plan attached” in responding to the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. In the decision, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s statements about having a payment plan for both of those debts, but noted no documents were attached to his answer. In his appeal brief, Applicant provided a copy of a payment plan that predates the SOR and contends that he provided it with his SOR Answer. In the reply brief, Department Counsel concedes that Applicant’s brief contains “a reasonable proffer of the possibility that Applicant had sent amplifying documents that may have been misplaced . . .” and indicates that he does not oppose a remand. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to reopen the record and collect from the parties and consider as appropriate the documents which Applicant claims to have submitted. Such consideration would, of course, include soliciting the arguments of the parties. 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