KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant asserts that the Judge did not receive all the documents she submitted.  Her
response to the FORM includes six and a fraction pages.  The Judge cites to her documentation. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00821.a1
DATE: 06/08/2016
DATE: June 8, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00821
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
September 18, 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 March 9, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 her appeal brief,
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).  
In her appeal brief, Applicant states, “I think the Judge did not get all the information I had
originally sent. . . .” She notes that she was in a hurry when she received the documents and did not
have an opportunity to make copies of them. She requested new copies of the documents that she
believes were missing and received copies marked with later dates.  She  attached to her appeal brief
a cumulative billing statement, documents showing payments to creditors, and a credit report. The
additional documents total about 60 pages.
We have examined Applicant’s argument in light of the record as a whole.  On November
18, 2015, she was sent a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) and advised of her right to
submit objections and additional information within 30 days of its receipt.  On December 14, 2015,
Applicant submitted a response to the FORM that consisted of a narrative explanation and proof of
payments to creditors.  Her response in the record is six and a fraction pages.  In her decision, the
Judge referenced Applicant’s response to the FORM and the attached proof of payments. 
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing
that she submitted more documents than those contained in the record.  In other words, she failed
to provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the Judge did not receive all of the documents
forwarded in her response to the FORM.  Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant was not denied
her right to due process.
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. 14-04959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).  Beyond this, Applicant’s
brief does not make an assertion of harmful error. 
2
Order
The case is AFFIRMED.   
Signed: Michael R’anan         
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3