CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03068.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03068.a1unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03068.a1

May 16, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who, representing himself, was initially denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant appealed this decision.

During the appeal process, the board discovered that the applicant had submitted evidence that was not part of the original record. Consequently, the appeal board did not issue a final outcome on the clearance denial.

Instead, the board remanded the case. This action requires a new decision to be made at the lower level, ensuring that all submitted evidence, including the previously unconsidered material, is properly reviewed before a final determination on the applicant's security clearance is rendered.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 2, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 25, 2018
Decision dateMay 16, 2018Appeal remanded for new decision.

Cite For

Remand for Consideration of Evidence Not Included in the Record
Due Process in Security Clearance Proceedings
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· Full written decision

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that evidence he submitted was not included in the record. The Board found merit in this claim and remanded the case for a new decision to consider the omitted evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant contends that he submitted 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 prima facie showing that he submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record, warranting a remand for a new decision.

On remand, the judge must

Consider the evidence that Applicant attempted to submit prior to the close of the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

James E. Moody
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

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: Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a new decision. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 16-03068.a1 DATE: 05/16/2018 DATE: May 16, 2018 In Re: --------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03068

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 December 2, 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 January 25, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant contends that he submitted evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the record. Although this is new evidence, we will consider it on the limited issue of due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05302 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 29, 2017). A significant portion of the documents that Applicant has attached to his brief post-date the Judge’s decision and, therefore, could not have been submitted during the pendency of the record. However, considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a new decision. Department Counsel states that he has no objection to a remand under the facts of this case. Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge to consider the evidence that Applicant attempted to submit prior to the close of the record. Other issues raised by Applicant in his brief are not ripe for consideration at this time.

ORDER

The Decision is REMANDED. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board