KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F
DIGEST: Board cannot address issues on appeal because file is missing both Government and
Applicant exhibits.  The Board remands to the case to the Judge to produce a complete record. 
Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 09-03114.a1
DATE: 08/26/2010
DATE: August 26, 2010
In Re:
---------------- 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03114
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 September 22, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992,
as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 15, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the Judge erred by finding that
Applicant had four siblings residing in Syria; and (2) whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Consistent with the following discussion,
we remand the case.
As a preliminary issue, we note that the case file does not contain Government Exhibits 1-7,
the documents submitted by Department Counsel and admitted at the hearing. Tr. at p. 8.
Additionally, the case file does not contain Applicant’s Exhibits A through K, which were submitted
by Applicant and admitted at the hearing. Tr. at p. 11.  In addition, the Board notes that the parties
and the Judge discussed 12 “Court Exhibits.” Tr. at pp. 22-27.  
Without a complete record we cannot perform appellate review.  Accordingly, we remand
the case to the Judge for the purpose of reconstructing the record in consultation with the parties.
Inasmuch as Applicant’s appeal brief could be construed as raising an issue concerning the
admissibility of an excluded document, that document needs to be included in the record as well.
Upon completion of record reconstruction, the case file should be returned to the Board for
processing of Applicant’s appeal in accordance with the Directive.  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board