KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant submitted documents before the close of the record which were received by
Department Counsel but not timely forwarded to the Judge.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 12-02827.a1
DATE: 05/08/2014
DATE: May 8, 2014
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-02827
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
August 28, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 24, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s
2
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 the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board remands the case to the Judge.
The Board notes a threshold issue raised by Applicant.  In his brief he makes the
representation that he submitted evidentiary matters after the hearing that were not considered by
the Judge.  As such, Applicant has made representations from outside the record.  As a general rule,
the Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, in the past, the
Board has considered new evidence or assertions outside the record insofar as it raises questions of
due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01038 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Mar 22, 2013).  
At the hearing, Applicant submitted, and the Judge accepted into evidence Applicant Exhibit
A.  During the hearing, Applicant indicated his desire for  the record to be kept open to enable him
to submit documents after the hearing.  The Judge left the record open for Applicant to submit
additional documents.  After the hearing, Applicant submitted, and the Judge acknowledged and
considered, additional documents, marked Applicant’s Exhibits B through F.  However, Applicant
also submitted other documents in addition to the ones acknowledged by the Judge, which were not
considered.  The Judge stated in his decision that Applicant had failed to provide documents
pertaining to tax payment plans or bankruptcy records.  This information was contained in the
additional documents submitted by Applicant.  Department Counsel acknowledges that this evidence
was received by them but was not forwarded to the Judge. 
Given these circumstances, the Board concludes that the best course of action 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 decision of the Judge is REMANDED.
Signed; Michael Ra’anan                 
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffery D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board