KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Applicant’s purported response to the FORM includes (and her cover letter
discusses) three attachments that post-date the June 22, 2015, cover letter and one of which
actually post-dates the Judge’s decision.  Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she actually
sent a response to the FORM within the time allotted. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04130.a1
DATE: 12/11/2015
DATE: December 11, 2015
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04130
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION 
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 24, 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 October 30, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
As a preliminary matter, Applicant claims that she submitted a response to the File of
Relevant Material (FORM) that was not incorporated into the record.  Her brief is accompanied by
an apparent cover letter, dated June 22, 2015, addressing each debt, along with documents that are
intended to corroborate her claims of debt resolution.  The essence of Applicant’s appeal is that the
letter and documents constitute her response to the FORM that was not examined by the Judge.
Applicant’s submission constitutes  new evidence, which we are generally precluded from
considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon
questions of due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8,
2015).  The Applicant’s purported response to the FORM includes (and her cover letter discusses)
three attachments that post-date the June 22, 2015, cover letter and one of which actually post-dates
the Judge’s decision.  Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she actually sent a response to the
FORM within the time allotted.  Applicant has not raised any other issue of harmful error by the
Judge.  Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged harmful error.
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  Accordingly, the decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board