KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has made assertions that, if true, would suggest that the Judge did not
consider all of the evidence. There is nothing in the record or in the decision to support or
corroborate those assertions. Therefore, Applicant has raised an issue that we cannot resolve,
insofar, as we have no fact-finding power. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-07050.a1
DATE: 06/08/2017
DATE: June 8, 2017
In Re:
-----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07050
APPEAL BOARD DECISION AND REMAND ORDER
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
March 9, 2016, 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 17, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
As a threshold matter, a question exists about whether the record of this proceeding is
complete.  At the hearing, Applicant offered three exhibits (Ax A-C) that were admitted into
evidence.  The transcript reflects the record closed at the end of the hearing.  Tr. at 69.  In his
decision, the Judge only refers to Applicant’s three exhibits.  In the appeal brief, Applicant asserts
that he submitted a post-hearing submission in January 2017, the Judge accepted the new
documentation in early February 2017, but the Judge did not mention or take into account the new
documentation in his decision.1  The record does not contain a post-hearing submission.  As such,
Applicant has made a representation from outside the record.  As a general rule, the Board cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, in the past, the Board has
considered new evidence or assertions outside the record insofar as it raises questions of due process
or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-02827 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 8, 2014).  
Through his attorney, Applicant has made assertions that, if true, would suggest that the
Judge did not consider all of the evidence.  There is nothing in the record or in the decision to
support or corroborate those assertions.  Therefore, Applicant has raised an issue that we cannot
resolve, insofar as we have no fact-finding power.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 2 (App.
Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).  
Given these circumstances, the Board concludes that the best course of action is to remand
the case to the Judge for determination whether Applicant submitted post-hearing matters and, if so,
for further processing.2  Other issues raised by Applicant’s on appeal are not ripe for our
consideration.
Order
The Decision of the Judge is REMANDED. 
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
1 In a footnote, Applicant refers to a letter sent to the Judge on January 31, 2017.
2 Failure to preserve a complete record is an error.  Even if a submission is excluded from evidence, the Judge
should marked it for identification and  placed it in the case file.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-08257 at 5 (App. Bd. Feb.
8, 2007).
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board