KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: In accordance with a joint motion of the parties, the Board is remanding the case to the
Administrative Judge for further processing.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 06-04371.a1
DATE: 05/29/2007 
DATE: May 29, 2007
In Re:
------------
SSN: --------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-04371
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esq, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James Krueger, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 8, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 3, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
2
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On May 15, 2007, Department Counsel filed a Motion for Expedited Remand.  On May 16,
2007, Applicant filed a response to the government’s motion stating that he joined in Department
Counsel’s motion.
  Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy, the case his hereby remanded to the
Judge for further processing.  Nothing about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the
parties.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan  
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board