FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s decision states that Applicant did not submit a documentary response to
the File of Relevant Material.  However the file contains a response.  Adverse decision
remanded.
CASENO: 06-07320.a1
DATE: 07/25/2007
DATE: July 25, 2007
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07320
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 30, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
Decision at 2.  1
See Memorandum for Administrative Judge from the Director, DOHA, dated November 21, 2006 (“The2
Applicant submitted information within the time period of 30 days after receipt of copy of the file of relevant material.
Response was due on 11/30/2006.”)    
2
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On January 31, 2007, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
We construe Applicant’s appeal submission as challenging whether he received the due
process rights afforded him by the Directive.  Finding error, we remand the case to the Judge.
In her decision, the Judge states that, although provided a complete copy of the file of
relevant material (FORM), Applicant did not submit a documentary response in accordance with
Directive ¶   E3.1.7.   She therefore decided the case based on the information provided to her,1
without input from Applicant.  However, the file contains Applicant’s response to the FORM, dated
November 17, 2006, which was forwarded to Department Counsel on November 21, 2006.2
Therefore, we conclude that Applicant’s submission on appeal is meritorious.   We conclude that the
proper remedy is to remand the case to the Judge for a new decision, one which takes into account
Applicant’s submission in response to the FORM. 
Order  
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
3
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board