KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant left the employ of a Defense contractor in January 2012.  Her need for a
security clearance terminated prior to commencement of the hearing.  Therefore, DOHA lacked
jurisdiction.  The Judge’s decision is reversed in the sense of that it is vacated and all
proceedings after January 2012 in this case are rendered void.  Favorable decision reversed.
CASENO: 10-07695.a1
DATE: 09/21/2012
DATE: September 21, 2012
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-07695
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 7, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On May 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul
granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
For reasons stated below, the Judge’s decision is vacated.
Applicant submitted her security clearance application (SCA) on March 19, 2009.  She was
seeking a clearance due to her employment by a Defense contractor.  Applicant left the employ of
the contractor in January 2012 and is unemployed.  Tr. at 49-50, 55-56, and 63-67. 
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.  Department Counsel contends on appeal that DOHA lacked jurisdiction to issue a
decision in this case, because Applicant no longer needed a clearance through her former contractor
employer.
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) and ISCR Case No. 08-08860 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 2, 2010).
Other issues raised by Department Counsel are rendered moot by this decision.
Order
The Judge’s decision to grant Applicant a security clearance is reversed.  All DOHA
processing in this case after January 23, 2012, shall be without legal effect.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan               
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields                    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                      
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board