KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant raised a jurisdictional issue that requires additional fact finding.  We do not
have authority to engage in fact finding.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASE NO: 15-01138.a1
DATE: 09/19/2016
DATE: September 19, 2016
In Re:
-----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01138
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 3, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On August 5, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant contends that he left his job as a contractor and is now employed as a Government
civilian.  Accordingly, he has raised an issue of whether DOHA has retained jurisdiction to decide
his case under the Directive.  Applicant’s brief makes assertions from outside the record (that he was
not a Defense contractor on the date the decision was issued), and we can consider new evidence
insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  As a general rule, if an applicant’s need for access to
classified information terminates, then DOHA processing of his case must cease, although there are
exceptions.  Directive ¶ 4.4.  In the case before us, resolution of the jurisdictional issue requires
additional fact-finding, which we have no authority to do.  Accordingly, we remand the case to the
Judge to reopen the record to enable the parties to present evidence regarding applicant’s
employment status as it bears upon the issue of DOHA jurisdiction and for the Judge to make
findings and conclusions on this matter.  All other issues raised in Applicant’s brief are not ripe for
adjudication.
The Decision is REMANDED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2