KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time.  Reversal in the sense of
vacating and rendering void all proceedings after Applicant left contractor employment.  Adverse
decision reversed.
CASENO: 08-08860.a1
DATE: 04/02/2010
DATE: April 2, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-08860
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Tovah A. Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Larry H. Colleton, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 23, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 December 7, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G.
Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
For reasons stated below, the Judge’s decision is vacated.
Applicant submitted his security clearance application (SCA) on May 2, 2008.  He was
seeking a clearance due to his employment by a Defense contractor.  Applicant left the employ of
the contractor in September 2009 and began working for an agency of the U.S. government.  He is
currently employed by the government agency itself rather than by a contractor.  Tr. at 27-28, 31-32.
In response to a letter from DOHA dated September 29, 2009, the contractor provided a computer-
generated document showing that Applicant had left the contractor’s employ on September 9, 2009.
 
The Directive provides that actions pursuant to it “shall cease upon termination of the
applicant’s need for access to classified information,” with exceptions not pertinent to this case.
Directive ¶ 4.4.  Applicant contends on appeal that DOHA lacked jurisdiction to issue a decision in
his case, because he no longer needed a clearance through his former contractor employer.
Department counsel concurs.  
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the proceedings, including on
appeal.  ISCR Case No. 02-24227 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2003).  In this case, the record demonstrates
that Applicant’s requirement for a security clearance had terminated prior to the date of the hearing.
Therefore, DOHA processing of the case should have terminated prior to the hearing.  Reversal in
the sense of vacating the decision and rendering void all proceedings in this case after that date is
mandated under these circumstances to correct this error.  See ISCR Case No. 05-04831 at 5 (App.
Bd. Nov. 29, 2006). 
Order
The Judge’s decision to deny Applicant a security clearance is reversed.  All DOHA
processing in this case after September 9, 2009, shall be without legal effect.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
3
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board