KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cited to a document at the beginning of the hearing, and Department
Counsel advised that she would forward an electronic copy of it to the Judge for inclusion in the
record.  However, the document is not included among Applicant’s exhibits.  The best resolution
of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing.  Adverse decision
remanded.  
CASE NO: 11-12627.a1
DATE: 09/18/2013
DATE: September 18, 2013
In Re:
------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-12627
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
March 6, 2013, 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 June 27, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the
evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge.
Applicant has presented matters from outside the record, the gist of which is that he provided
a document to the Judge that was not incorporated into the record.  As a general rule, we cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, in the past we have considered
new evidence insofar as it raises questions of due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
12-01038 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2013).  In the case before us, Applicant has attached to his brief a copy
of a character reference submitted by a co-worker.  He cited to this document at the beginning of the
hearing, and Department Counsel advised that she would forward an electronic copy of it to the
Judge for inclusion in the record.  Tr. at 22, 27, 92.  However, this document is not included among
Applicant’s exhibits.  In the Decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had submitted only one
character reference, although the exhibit in question here would have been the second.  We conclude
that the best resolution of this matter is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing.  Other
issues raised by Applicant’s appeal brief are not ripe for our consideration. 
Order
The case 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
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board