KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable belief that she had
submitted a response to the File of Relevant Material.  Even if she had submitted the documents
in question, they would not likely have affected the outcome of the case.  Otherwise, she did not
raise an issue of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-07169.a1
DATE: 11/18/2013
DATE: November 18, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-07169
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
December 3, 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 decision
on the written record.  On August 29, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s brief asserts matters not contained in the record.  We are not authorized to
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, in appropriate cases we have
2
considered matters outside the record insofar as they bear upon threshold issues such as due process.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-07667 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2013).  We have remanded cases to
Judges in order for them to consider evidence that, through no fault of the applicants, did not make
it into the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01038 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 2013).  In the case
before us, Applicant states that she submitted a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM),
but the documents were not included in the record.  She has attached the documents she claims to
have submitted, speculating that they “may have been misplaced.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  In a Reply
Brief, the Chief Department Counsel argues that Applicant has not made a proffer sufficient to
support a reasonable inference that she actually submitted a response to the FORM.  We note that
Applicant has submitted under separate cover an e-mail communication between two officials of the
Government agency where she performs her duties and that could be interpreted to mean that
Applicant had made a response.  However, it is ambiguous and is not accompanied by an
explanation from Applicant herself.  Compare with ISCR Case No. 06-07320 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 25,
2007), in which the record contained affirmative evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the
applicant submitted a reply to the FORM.  In fact, Applicant’s contention is substantially
undermined by the fact that several of the documents she claims to have submitted actually post-date
the Judge’s decision.  Moreover, we find persuasive the Chief Department Counsel’s argument that
even if the documents in question had been submitted to the Judge it is unlikely that there would
have been a different outcome.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-04482 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2007).
Otherwise, Applicant does not raise an issue of harmful error by the Judge.  We do not
review a case de novo.  Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing
party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  See also ISCR Case
No. 10-06703 at 2 (App. Bd. May 4, 2012).  Therefore, 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: James E. Moody               
3
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board