KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has offered nothing to corroborate his claim that he submitted additional
documents for the Judge’s consideration.  Under such circumstances, the Board finds no reason
to remand the case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-06839.a1
DATE: 04/30/2013
DATE: April 30, 2013
In Re:
----------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-06839
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
5, 2012, DoD 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 January 30, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether there are grounds for ordering a
remand to allow the Judge to consider documents Applicant claims he submitted.  For the following
reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. 
The Judge found that Applicant has substantial delinquent debt.  The 31 debts in the SOR,
which range from $38 to $8,805, amount to approximately $47,010.  Applicant asserts that he had
paid many of them, and was working on a settlement for others.  Applicant submitted no
documentary evidence regarding any of the admitted debts, nor did he submit any materials
regarding refuted accounts.  The Judge concluded that a serious automobile accident and related
recuperative time in 2007-2008 was a source of financial distress  and contributed to Applicant’s
financial problems.  However, while it was Applicant’s position that he paid the majority of debts
at issue, there was no documentary evidence showing that any of the debts had been paid, put into
repayment, disputed, or otherwise addressed.  Without such documentary evidence, it could not be
concluded that significant progress has been made on the debts at issue.  The Judge denied Applicant
a security clearance.
Applicant does not claim error on the part of the Judge.  He does assert that he mailed
documents to Department Counsel after the hearing, and had the Judge considered those documents,
he would have ruled in Applicant’s favor.  Applicant submitted eleven documents with his appeal
brief, which implicitly are the same documents he states he submitted earlier.  However, two of the
documents are dated March 4, 2013, which is after the date of the Judge’s decision and could not
have been part of a purported timely submission.
The Judge’s decision contains a narrative of events concerning the receipt of post-hearing
documents from Applicant, some of which are corroborated by the hearing transcript, and some of
which are corroborated by a series of e-mails between Applicant and Department Counsel placed
in the blue administrative folder portion of the case file.  Applicant offered no documents at the
hearing.  He was given until November 8, 2012 to submit materials for consideration.  On November
8, 2012, Applicant requested an extension of time, and was granted an extension until November
20, 2012.  A second extension was granted giving Applicant until November 26, 2012.  On
December 3, 2012, Applicant contacted Department Counsel to inquire as to whether she had
received materials he stated were mailed on November 26, 2012.  Department Counsel responded
that no materials had been received.  She subsequently advised Applicant that no materials had been
received as of December 11, 2012.  On January 7, 2013, the Judge learned from Department Counsel
that no mailing had ever been received from Applicant, and that there had been no contact with
Applicant since December 7, 2012.  The Judge then closed the record.
We have, in the past, remanded cases to the appropriate Judges for consideration of
documents that applicants had submitted but which were not incorporated into the records.
However, a review of the decision, the record, and Applicant’s brief and attachments does not
present an adequate basis to remand the case.  Compare, e.g., ADP Case No. 09-02670 at 2 (App.
Bd. Jan 20, 2011).  Furthermore, in this case, Applicant has offered nothing to corroborate his claim
that he had submitted additional documents.  Under such circumstances, the Board finds no reason
to remand the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-09433 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012).  The eleven
documents attached to Applicant’s appeal brief will not be considered, as they constitute new
evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
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: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board