KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant submitted documents after the date which the Judge had designated for
closure of the record.  The admitted them the documents into the record.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02371.a1
DATE: 06/08/2016
DATE: June 8, 2016
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02371
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
August 7, 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 Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On March 18, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all the
evidence in the case and whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
Applicant contends that “proper legal procedure was not carried out” because the Judge
failed to consider documentary evidence that Applicant had submitted to the Judge and Department
Counsel subsequent to the hearing.  This argument does not demonstrate error on the part of the
Judge.
Applicant’s hearing was held on August 27, 2015.  At the close of the hearing, the Judge left
the record open until October 30, 2015, for the Applicant to submit any additional documentary
evidence.  Tr. at 81.  On December 4, 2015, Applicant submitted three additional documentary
exhibits—letters from Applicant’s accountant to his state tax board, also dated December 4, 2015. 
The Judge was not obligated to consider those letters because they were submitted more than a
month after the close of the record.  Nevertheless, the Judge admitted the letters into evidence and 
considered them jointly as Applicant’s Exhibit K.  Decision at 2.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-
05959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).
Applicant also asks that the decision in his case be “delayed” so that he can submit eight
documents that he lists in his Appeal Brief.  Seven of those documents are items that are already part
of the case record.1  The eighth document is a letter dated May 2, 2016, subsequent to the Judge’s
March 18, 2016 decision.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See
also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access
to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
1The Statement of Reasons, Answer, Hearing Transcript, Decision, Notice of Appeal, Appeal
Board letter, and Applicant’s Brief. 
2
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed; Michael Ra’anan           
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Catherine Engstrom        
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3