KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Remand to the Administrative Judge for further processing in light in light of
Applicant’s motion regarding his “original response’ to the File of Relevant Material.  Adverse
decision remanded.
CASENO: 07-17920.a1
DATE: 10/03/2008
DATE: October 3, 2008
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-17920
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Fred Grafstein, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 16, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis 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 July 28, 2008, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On August 27, 2008, Applicant filed a motion for expedited remand for the Judge to consider
Applicant’s “original response [to the File of Relevant Material] which apparently had not been
taken into account.”  On September 4, 2008, Department Counsel filed a response to Applicant’s
motion stating that he had no objection to the “expedited remand.”  Accordingly, in the interest of
administrative economy, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing.  Nothing
about this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board