KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In her appeal brief, Applicant asserted she submitted documents to Department
Counsel on August 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the email that she sent to Department
Counsel along with its five purported attachments. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-02816.a1
DATE: 07/24/2017
DATE: July 24, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02816
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
October 31, 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 hearing. 
On May 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant submitted documentary
evidence that was not included in the record.  Consistent with the following, we remand the case to
the Judge. 
At the hearing, the Judge left the record open until August 8, 2016, for Applicant to submit
documents.  Tr. at 56 and 64.  In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant did not submit any
documents.  In her appeal brief, Applicant asserted she submitted documents to Department Counsel
on August 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the email that she sent to Department Counsel along with
its five purported attachments.  
 Applicant’s assertions on appeal constitute new evidence, which we are generally prohibited
from considering.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues
such as due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  Under the facts
of this case, we conclude that Applicant’s assertions are sufficient to raise a prima facie case that
she submitted documents to Department Counsel that either did not arrive at DOHA or were not sent
to the Judge.  We cannot resolve this issue based upon the facts before us.  Accordingly, we
conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for further processing
consistent with the Directive.  See, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 12-07667 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2013). 
 
Order
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
Signed: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board