KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has made a prima facie case that he offered evidence which was not
incorporated into the record.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 14-04653.a1
DATE: 05/17/2016
DATE: May 17, 2016
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04653
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Leanne M. Innet, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 8, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 10, 2016,
after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M.
White 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. 15-01753 at 1 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  Specifically, he contends that he submitted documents
to the Judge that were not included in the record.  The Judge had left the record open for two weeks
after the hearing, until August 26, 2015, for him to provide additional evidence.  Tr. at 94-95. 
Applicant notes that, in reference to his opportunity to provide additional documents, he asked the
Judge, “How does that work?” and the Judge replied that they would discuss it off the record.  Tr.
at 95.  The contents of any off-record discussions are not summarized, so we cannot say for certain
what kind of guidance Applicant may have received concerning the means by which his additional
evidence should have been submitted.  Be that as it may,  Applicant states that he emailed
documents to the Judge and attaches to his brief the printout of an email transmittal along with
copies of documents that he asserts were the ones that he sent to the Judge.  These documents do not
appear in the record.  Indeed, the Judge stated in the Decision that Applicant was given an
opportunity to provide additional evidence but failed to do so.  Decision at 2.  Under the facts of this
case, Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he offered relevant evidence that was not
admitted and incorporated into the record and, therefore, not considered by the Judge.  We conclude
that the best resolution of the case is to remand it to the Judge to consider Applicant’s evidence and
then issue a Decision in accordance with the Directive.  The other issue that Applicant has raised
is not ripe for consideration.  The Decision is REMANDED. 
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2
Signed: James E. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3