KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant asserts, with documentary support, that he took all steps to ensure that the
documents attached to his appeal brief were timely submitted to the Judge, but the documents
did not make it into the record.  We remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents and
to issue a new decision. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 10-09936.a1
DATE: 02/03/2012
DATE: February 3, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-09936
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 3, 2011, 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 hearing.  On December 14, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E.
Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether Applicant was denied an opportunity
to present evidence in mitigation and extenuation.  Consistent with the following, we remand the
case to the Judge.   
The hearing in Applicant’s case took place on October 24, 2011.  The Judge held the record
open for 30 days in order to give Applicant an opportunity to present additional evidence.
Applicant’s brief includes information and documents outside the record regarding his efforts to
provide additional evidence.  We cannot consider new evidence regarding SOR allegations, but we
have, in appropriate cases, considered evidence outside the record insofar as it raises threshold issues
of due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07664 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009).
In this case, we have considered the representations in Applicant’s brief for the light they shed on
the issue raised on appeal.  Applicant asserts, and Department Counsel concurs, that he took all steps
necessary to ensure that the documents attached to his appeal brief were submitted to the Judge
within the allotted time, but, through no fault of his own, the documents did not make it into the
record.  Applicant’s assertions are not frivolous, nor are they contradicted by anything in the record.
Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge
for him to consider the documents that Applicant had attempted to submit and then to issue a new
decision 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: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board