KEYWORD: Guiodeline F
DIGEST: Applicant has made a prima facie case that some of his evidence was not passed on to
the Judge.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 14-04491.a1
DATE: 04/15/2016
DATE: April 15, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04491
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
March 26, 2015, 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 February 11, 2016, 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 Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether he submitted documents that did
not make it into the record 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. 
Applicant has raised an issue of due process.  In doing so, he asserts matters from outside
the record, which we generally cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, we will consider
new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). 
The Judge held the record open after the hearing to enable Applicant to submit additional
evidence to him through Department Counsel.  Tr. at 54.  On August 20, 2015, Department Counsel
advised Applicant to send “the documents you would like to submit attached to a reply to this
email.” The record contains copies of three emails with attachments that were sent to Department
Counsel on August 21 and on August 31 by an official acting on behalf of Applicant.  Department
Counsel forwarded post-hearing documents to the Judge on January 15, 2016.  These documents
were admitted as Applicant Exhibits B through E.  Decision at 2.  Applicant asserts that his
representative sent other exhibits that were not included in the record.  He has attached to his Appeal
Brief documents that he contends were the exhibits his representative transmitted to Department
Counsel but that were not presented to the Judge.  They purport to show resolution of most of the
SOR debts.  Department Counsel has not submitted a Reply Brief addressing this issue.  We
conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that some of his evidence was not passed
on to the Judge and, therefore, was not considered.  We conclude that the best resolution is to
remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his brief and
then to issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive.  The other issue raised by Applicant
is not ripe for consideration.
Order
The case is REMANDED.   
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
2
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3