KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C; Guideline M
DIGEST: The Board’s April 16, 2009 decision remanded the case for the Judge to consider
additional evidence.  The additional evidence consisted of four pages: two pages from April and
two pages from February 2009.  The Judge’s Remand Decision states that the new evidence is a
two page document.  The two pages from April are in the evidentiary file.  However, the two
pages from February are not in the file. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 08-01980,a2
DATE: 06/29/2009
DATE: June 29, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-01980
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 14, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence),
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On March 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed an  appeal pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  The Board remanded the case for consideration of additional evidence.
On May 6, 2009, Judge Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed
an  appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 
As a threshold issue, the Board notes that in its April 16, 2009 decision the Board remanded
the case for the Judge to consider additional evidence.  The additional evidence that had been
presented to the Board consisted of four pages: two pages from April 1, 2009 and two pages from
February 2009.  The Judge’s Remand Decision states explicitly that the new evidence is a two page
document.  The two pages from April 1, 2009 are in the evidentiary file.  However, the two pages
from February are not in the evidentiary file.  There is no statement in the Judge’s decision nor any
indication in the evidentiary file as to how the two pages were delivered to the Judge.  Nor is there
any indication that she ever saw or considered the two pages from February 2009.  Accordingly,  the
case is 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: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board