WPCj (@ĢAĢAטzcӲ pMEb=Ph0@Q^4;4_Rgl!EJ_0T A2Q@bt/Gyo-wf $j7{V ,vTȋ8ZA/0`h2 )ln8'C[L5:ʸEKb;dQE$N(7t禶G-uJؐ)djpDOt0/_M@b%!KDa-v9!)o`s|ľDR;,gH`[n4N7MRs1<L%%:gp`#@UN %W 0:] Z ^ w 4  $ m& Z= = N E 0~ 0D ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BMHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEJwJ;EJ:i+003|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    1    _XXDepartmentCounseldidnotspecificallyobjecttothefactthattheJudgesdecisionwouldbefavorable.  Sheonlystated: TheGovernmentobjectstotheissuanceofasummarydecisioninthiscase.Anydecisionasto t appealbyeitherofthepartieswouldhavebeenmadesubsequenttotheissuanceofthefinaldecision.  ($USUS.,    2    _XXGenerally,wewouldanticipatethataJudgewouldinformthepartiesthatheorsheintendedtoissuea  favorablesummarydecisiononlyafterheorshehadfullyconsideredallaspectsofthecaseandconcludedthatthe t undisputedrecordevidencejustifiedafavorabledecisionwithnopotentialappellatereview. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineB;GuidelineC  DIGEST:ApplicantsappealbriefincludesemailinwhichtheJudgestatedthatheintendedto  issueasummarydecisiongrantingApplicantasecurityclearance.Underthesecircumstances,the t bestremedyistoremandthecasetotheJudgeforcorrectionorexplanationofthediscrepancy ` notedabove.Adversedecisionremanded. L  _CASENO_:1503176.a1 $ t DATE:05/26/1988  L     `     h      p DATE:May26,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.A_) xdEgA   InRe:      ApplicantforSecurityClearance k A_) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1503176 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDSUMMARYREMAND % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #-  ProSe #XX%&|# $.       TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On R'"1 December2,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat >(#2 decision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineB(ForeignPreference)andGuidelineC(Foreign *)z$3 Influence)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive). *f%4 Applicantrequestedahearing.OnFebruary16,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearings +R&5 andAppealsAdministrativeJudgeRobertJ._Tuider_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurity +>'6 clearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttotheDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,*(7    -)8   ApplicantsappealbrieftakesissuewiththeJudgesultimateadversedecisionandincludes  acopyofaposthearingemailexchangebetweentheJudgeandDepartmentCounselwhichispart  _oftherecordofthecase.InthisemailexchangetheJudgestatedthatheintendedtoissueasummary  decisiongrantingApplicantasecurityclearance.InherreplyemailtotheJudge,Department t Counselstatedwithoutelaborationthatthegovernmentobjectedtotheissuanceofasummary ` decisioninthiscase. #  1      ׀AfterreceivingDepartmentCounselsreply,theJudgeissuedafulldecision L  denyingApplicantasecurityclearance.AreviewoftherecordindicatesthattheJudgedidnot 8  receiveanyadditionalevidenceorargumentfromthepartiessubsequenttoDepartmentCounsels $ t replyemailthatwouldreadilyexplainsuchanapparentsignificantchangeinposition.TheJudges  ` decisioncontainsnodiscussionoftheemailexchangeregardingtheproposedfavorabledecisionand  L  summarydisposition.Accordingly,giventhecurrentstateoftherecord,theJudgeshandlingofthe  8  caseappearstobeeithererroneous,orarbitraryandcapricious,basedupontherepresentations $  containedintheaforesaidemailexchange. #  2      ׀Underthesecircumstances,thebestremedyistoremand   thecasetotheJudgeforcorrectionorexplanationofthediscrepancynotedabove.     Thecaseis Remanded . h         `     h   Signed:MichaelRaanan 8    `     h   MichaelRaanan $t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard L    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy     `     h   JamesF.Duffy     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard p    `     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields  #p!    `     h   WilliamS.Fields  $\"    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $H #    `     h   Member,AppealBoard %4!$   & "%