KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant’s statement that he resigned from his job in January 2018 raises the issue of
whether the processing of his case should have ceased at that point.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 17-03090.a1
DATE: 10/26/2018
DATE: October 26, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03090
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
September 29,  2017, DoD 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 decision
on the written record.  On August 21, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari
Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  For reasons set forth below, we remand the case to the Judge. 
 In his appeal brief, Applicant states, “I contest issues pertaining to ‘Foreign Influence.’” 
Appeal Brief at 1.  He then proceeds to discuss his ties to a foreign country.  In doing so, he neither 
challenges any of the Judge’s findings of fact nor raises any other allegations of error on the part of
the Judge.   However, he states that he resigned his job with the employer who was sponsoring him
for a security clearance in January 2018, which was the same month that Department Counsel issued
the File of Relevant Material and about seven months before the decision in this case was issued. 
Although neither party raised subject matter jurisdiction as an issue in this case, it can be
raised sua sponte by the Board, which is authorized to consider and resolve the threshold issue of
whether there is subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a particular security clearance case under
the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-09776 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2009).  The Directive
provides that actions commenced pursuant to it “shall cease upon termination of the applicant’s need
for access to classified information except in those cases in which . . . [a] hearing has commenced
. . . [a] clearance decision has been issued; or . . . [t]he applicant’s security clearance was suspended
and the applicant provided a written request that the case continue.”  Directive ¶ 4.4.  Applicant’s
statement that he resigned from his job in January 2018 raises the issue of whether the processing
of his case should have ceased at that point.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-04831 at 2-6 (App. Bd.
Nov. 29, 2006).  
Given the paucity of evidence in the record on this jurisdictional issue, the appropriate course
is to remand the case to the Judge for additional proceedings so that the parties have an opportunity
to address this matter.  Therefore, we remand the case to the Judge to reopen the record to allow the
parties to present evidence as to the facts and circumstances regarding the jurisdictional issue
outlined above, including the question of whether Applicant still possessed a need for access to
classified information at the time the decision was issued. 
2
Order
The Judge’s adverse decision is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan      
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale       
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3