KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Directive does not allow us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04959.a1
DATE: 04/06/2016
DATE: April 6, 2016
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04959
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 16, 2015, 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 decision
on the written record.  On February 19, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 has raised an issue of due process.  In pressing her
argument, she includes matters from outside the record, which we are generally precluded from
considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon
threshold questions such as jurisdiction or due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2
(App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  
Applicant states that she mailed documents to a named official at the DoD Consolidated
Adjudications Facility (CAF) regarding her efforts at debt repayment. Applicant states that,
believing that these documents would become part of the administrative record, she provided no
further information upon receipt of the SOR.1  However, she states that they were not included in
the record, with the result that the Judge made his final decision without reference to all of her
evidence.  
We have examined Applicant’s argument in light of the record as a whole.  She was sent a
copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), which contained the documentary evidence upon
which the Government intended to rely in its case in chief.  The FORM was accompanied by a cover
letter from a DOHA official and a copy of the Directive.  On July 16, 2015, Applicant acknowledged
receipt of these documents.  Both the FORM and the cover letter advised her of her right to make
a documentary response to the FORM.  The Directive contains such guidance as well.  In the
FORM, Department Counsel advised Applicant that she had a right to submit “a documentary
response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate.” 
The cover letter stated that she could provide “any additional information” that she wanted the Judge
to consider.  Cover Letter, dated July 9, 2015.  A memorandum, dated November 18, 2015, and
signed on behalf of the DOHA Director, notes that Applicant did not submit additional evidence. 
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing
that she submitted documents other than those that were attached to her  SOR answer and that were
included in the FORM.  Indeed, several of the documents that she has attached to her Appeal Brief
actually post-date the Judge’s decision.  Although Applicant may believe that the FORM did not
contain all of the evidence that she would like the Judge to have considered, she was provided with
a reasonable opportunity to supplement the record and declined to do so.  Accordingly, we conclude
that Applicant was not denied her right to due process.
1The record includes Applicant’s answer to the SOR, followed by documents.  It appears that she did provide
about twenty pages of evidence in support of her SOR answer, despite her contrary assertion in the Appeal Brief.  We
construe her brief to mean that she submitted no further evidence after having received the FORM.  
2
Applicant states that her continued employment is contingent upon her maintaining a
clearance.  However, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable
decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). To the extent that
Applicant’s inclusion of some documents already in the record constitutes an argument that the
Judge did not consider them, we conclude that she has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.
4, 2015).  Beyond this, Applicant’s brief does not make an assertion of harmful error. 
Order
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
3