KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief includes email in which the Judge stated that he intended to
issue a summary decision granting Applicant a security clearance. Under these circumstances,
the best remedy is to remand the case to the Judge for correction or explanation of the
discrepancy noted above. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-03176.a1
DATE: 05/26/2017
DATE: May 26, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03176
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY REMAND
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
December 2, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Preference) and Guideline C
(Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 16, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief takes issue with the Judge’s ultimate adverse decision and includes
a copy of a post-hearing email exchange between the Judge and Department Counsel which is part
of the record of the case.  In this email exchange the Judge stated that he intended to issue a
summary decision granting Applicant a security clearance.  In her reply email to the Judge,
Department Counsel stated without elaboration that the government objected to the issuance of a
summary decision in this case.1  After receiving Department Counsel’s reply, the Judge issued a full
decision denying Applicant a security clearance.  A review of the record indicates that the Judge did
not receive any additional evidence or argument from the parties subsequent to Department
Counsel’s reply email that would readily explain such an apparent significant change in position. 
The Judge’s decision contains no discussion of the email exchange regarding the proposed favorable
decision and summary disposition.  Accordingly, given the current state of the record, the Judge’s
handling of the case appears to be either erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious, based upon the
representations contained in the aforesaid email exchange.2  Under these circumstances, the best
remedy is to remand the case to the Judge for correction or explanation of the discrepancy noted
above.  
The case is Remanded.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan          
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1Department Counsel did not specifically object to the fact that the Judge’s decision would be favorable. 
She only stated: “The Government objects to the issuance of a summary decision in this case.”  Any decision as to
appeal by either of the parties would have been made subsequent to the issuance of the final decision.
2Generally, we would anticipate that a Judge would inform the parties that he or she intended to issue a
favorable summary decision only after he or she had fully considered all aspects of the case and concluded that the
undisputed record evidence justified a favorable decision with no potential appellate review.