FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant contends the SOR was misdated and that the Judge applied the wrong
Guidelines as a result.  Given the disparity in the date of the SOR and the answer, Applicant’s
contentions may have merit.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 06-22273.a1
DATE: 11/28/2007
DATE: November 28, 2007
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22273
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR), dated January 27, 2006, advising Applicant
2
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On August 31, 2007, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On appeal Applicant contends that the SOR in this case was misdated as January 27, 2006,
when in fact it was issued in January 2007 and received by him in February 2007.  Because of this
possible misdating error, Applicant contends that the Judge applied the wrong Guidelines in his
case—that is, the old Guidelines for SORs issued prior to September 1, 2006, rather than the new
Guidelines for SORs issued after that date.
 
Normally, an applicant must submit his answer “. . . within 20 days from receipt of the SOR.”
Directive at ¶ E3.1.4.  If an applicant does not file a timely answer, DOHA may discontinue
processing his case and deny him a clearance.  Directive at ¶ E3.1.5.  A review of the record
indicates that Applicant’s answer to the SOR was dated February 9, 2007 and was stamped as
received by DOHA on February 20, 2007.  That means his answer would have been received more
than a year after the date of the SOR.  Although the letter transmitting the SOR to Applicant was
similarly dated January 27, 2006, Applicant’s acknowledgment of receipt on that letter was dated
February 1, 2007, and DOHA stamped this letter and acknowledgment as being received by DOHA
on February 5, 2007.  Department Counsel did not file a reply to Applicant’s appeal and there is no
explanation as to why it would have taken over a year for Applicant to receive the SOR.  
 Given the disparity in the dates between the SOR and the answer, and the fact that the SOR
was issued close to the beginning of the year, Applicant’s assertions may have merit.  However,
because of the present state of the record, the Board is not in a position to resolve the issue.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Judge.  On remand, the Judge is permitted to reopen the
record as appropriate to resolve any outstanding issues relating to the issuance of the SOR and the
application of the appropriate Guidelines.
Order
The determination of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board