KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge held the record open after the hearing to give Applicant an opportunity to
submit additional evidence.  Applicant provided evidence, but it was not included in the record. 
Adverse decision remanded.
CASE NO: 11-08849.a1
DATE: 12/02/2013
DATE:  December 2, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-08849
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
January 10, 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 August 27, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge considered all the
evidence in the case.  Consistent with the following, the Board remands the case to the Judge.
1Decision at 2.
2
Applicant has made representations from outside the record, the gist of which is that he
provided documents to Department Counsel post-hearing that were not considered by the Judge.
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, the hearing transcript verifies Applicant’s assertion that the Judge
granted Applicant a period of one week after the close of the hearing (the hearing was held on June
10, 2013) during which Applicant could present further evidence, and that evidence was to be
forwarded to Department Counsel and then to the Judge.  On appeal, Applicant states that he
forwarded some documents to Department Counsel on June 13, 2013 via an overnight delivery
service.  The documentary evidence portion of the case file contains the exhibits referenced in the
Judges decision.  It also contains approximately 70-75 pages of documents that are not referenced
in the Judge’s decision.  These documents are not bound to the file and are loose leaf.  The most
recent of these documents are dated June 12 and June 13, 2013.  The Judge’s decision states, “The
record was held open to allow Applicant to submit additional information.  No additional material
was received.”1   
In light of the circumstances described above, the Board concludes 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: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board