KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that he submitted documents in response to a File of Relevant
Material that were not included in the record.  No evidence corroborates his claim that he mailed
the documents.  Applicant failed to make a prima facie showing that he submitted the
documents.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 15-01753.a1
DATE: 04/26/2016
DATE: April 26, 2016
In Re:
---------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01753
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 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 22, 2016, 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.
Applicant has raised an issue of due process.  In doing so, he makes assertions 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).  Specifically, Applicant contends that he submitted
documents in response to the File of Relevant Material that were not included in the record and,
therefore, were not considered by the Judge.  He has attached to his brief copies of the documents
that he claims to have submitted.  Department Counsel’s Reply Brief states that Applicant has
provided no postal receipt or other evidence that would corroborate his claim to have mailed the
documents in question.  We cannot conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that
he submitted the documents.  In any event, having reviewed the Judge’s decision, it is not likely that
their inclusion in the record would have produced a different result.  Other than this, Applicant has
made no assertion of harmful error by the Judge.  Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the
appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-
01969 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).  Therefore, the Judge’s 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