KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant submitted documents in response to the FORM that were not included in the
record.  Case remanded to the Judge for further processing.  Adverse decision remanded.  
CASE NO: 10-00133.a1
DATE: 08/18/2011
DATE: August 18, 2011
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-00133
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 2, 2010, 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 June 30, 2011, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant was afforded an opportunity to reply to the File of Relevant Material.  By means
of her appeal brief, she has provided credible evidence that she submitted four letters, which were
received by DOHA within the prescribed period of time.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.7.  However, these
letters were not made part of the record.  
In his reply brief, Department Counsel states that expedited remand is the most equitable
resolution of this case.  We concur.  Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for
further processing.  Nothing contained in this action shall prejudice the appeal rights of the parties.
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: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board