KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant asserts that she mailed in documents which the Judge never considered. 
One document the Judge addressed.  On document is dated after the close of the record.  One
document refers to events that occurred after the Judge’s decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02933.a1
DATE: 09/23/2016
DATE: September 23, 2016
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02933
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
December 2, 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 July 21, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises an issue of due process.  In doing so, she makes assertions from outside the
record, which we normally cannot consider.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it
bears upon threshold issues of due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 2
(App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  She states that, in February 2016, she sent documentary evidence to DOHA
in response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record.  She has
attached to her brief what she claims to be this evidence, though she states that she does not have
the postal receipt verifying that it was mailed.  
The record shows that DOHA sent the FORM to Applicant in January 2016, advising her of
her right to provide a documentary response.  The letter stated that she had 30 days from receipt to
do so. Letter to Applicant, dated January 28, 2016.  Applicant received the letter on February 3,
2016, as evidenced by her signed receipt acknowledgment.  DOHA received nothing from Applicant
within the 30 days allotted.  Memorandum For Administrative Judge, dated April 5, 2016. 
Applicant’s brief does not assert that she asked for additional time, and there is nothing in the record
to suggest that she did so.  The attachments to Applicant’s brief include her Answer to the SOR,
which is part of the record and which the Judge addressed.  Decision at 2.  The attachments include
two other documents, one of which is a credit report dated July 13, 2016, well after the close of the
record.  The other document shows that certain items were removed from Applicant’s credit reports,
with a removal date of August 2016, after the Judge issued her decision.  Applicant’s brief alludes
to nothing else that she claims to have submitted.  Applicant has not made a prima facie showing
that she had actually made a documentary response to the FORM.  Therefore, there is no reason to
believe that she was denied due process.  Beyond this, Applicant has not made an assertion of
harmful error.  Accordingly, the Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2
Signed; James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3