KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In a case where the Judge makes multiple findings about an applicant which have no
foundation in the record the case must be remanded for issuance of a new decision which is
bases on the record.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 11-01393.a1
DATE: 07/25/2012
DATE: July 25, 2012
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-01393
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.  On August 26, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 1, 2012, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact are
based on substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s decision is contrary to the weight of
the record evidence and, therefore, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the
following, we remand the case to the Judge for issuance of a new decision. 
As a threshold issue we address Applicant’s contention that the Judge made several findings
of fact which have no basis in the record evidence.  Specifically, Applicant contests the Judge’s
findings that he is married, that his wife is in nursing school, that he (and his wife) received
counseling from the church, that he has a mortgage, and that he applied for a Top Secret Clearance.
Department Counsel agrees with Applicant that the aforesaid findings are erroneous.
Department Counsel contends that the erroneous findings are harmless.  We do not agree.
The Judge refers back to several of them in his analysis.  Applicant reasonably asks whether the
Judge was relying on another person’s file when preparing Applicant’s decision.  The Board has
previously noted that one premise essential to the concept of due process is a meaningful opportunity
to respond.  Public confidence in the industrial security program relies  in part on the appearance of
a fair and impartial adjudication in light of the record as a whole.  In a case where the Judge makes
multiple findings about an applicant which have no foundation in the record, the Judge’s decision
is undermined and so is confidence in the industrial security program.  The case must be remanded
for issuance of a new decision which is based on the record in Applicant’s case. See ISCR Case No.
02-23979 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2004); ISCR Case No. 02-07191 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2004); and ISCR
Case No. 01-05500 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2003).
It is premature to address the other issue raised by Applicant on appeal.
Order
The case is REMANDED to the Judge for issuance of a new decision consistent with the
Board’s conclusions and rulings.
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