KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The file may be incomplete and the Judge did not consider evidence Applicant
submitted.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 14-03905.a1
DATE: 09/18/2015
DATE: September 18, 2015
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03905
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
October 7, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
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 June 23, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 he was denied due process 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. 
We note Applicant’s argument that he submitted a Response to the File of Relevant Material
(FORM) that the Judge did not take into account in analyzing the case.  This argument includes
matters from outside the record, which we are generally precluded from considering.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  However, in the past we have considered new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions
of due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  In this case,
Applicant submitted an email which is in the file but which cited to documents (pertinent to his
delinquent tax debts) that are not in the file.  In a footnote to the Decision, the Judge stated that he
did not consider Applicant’s submission because it was not timely.  Although the correspondence
was sent and received after the 30-day window for Applicant to have replied to the FORM
(Directive ¶ E3.1.7), Department Counsel recommends that we remand the case to the Judge to
consider Applicant’s submission, “in the best interest of all parties.”  Reply Brief at 5.  
Among other things, Applicant asserts that he acted in reliance upon assurances from DOHA
personnel in submitting his late response.  Given the state of the record we would have to remand
in any case.  For reasons limited strictly to the circumstances of this case, we remand the case to the
Judge to ensure that the record contains all documents which were actually submitted to him and for
him to consider the documents that were submitted prior to his June 23, 2015, Decision.  The other
issue raised by Applicant is not ripe for our consideration.
Order
The Case is REMANDED.   
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board