KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: We conclude that Applicant made a good-faith effort to request additional time and
that he had documents that he believed would assist in demonstrating mitigation. We conclude
that the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to consider the
documents. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-08847.a1
DATE: 09/08/2017
DATE: September 8, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08847
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 June
17, 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 June 6, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 claims that he submitted documentary evidence to the
Judge that did not make it into the record.  Although his assertions constitute new evidence, which
we are generally not permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such
as due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).
The transcript shows that the Judge left the record open for a month after the hearing to
enable Applicant to submit additional evidence.  The Judge advised Applicant that he could ask for
additional time if needed.  Tr. at 41.  However, the Judge stated in the Decision that Applicant
submitted nothing.  Attached to Applicant’s appeal brief is email traffic between himself and the
DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) in which he requests an extension of time to submit
documents.  Although he should have sent this request to the Judge, Applicant may well have
misunderstood the relationship between the DoD CAF and DOHA.  Under the circumstances, we
conclude that Applicant made a good-faith effort to request additional time and that he had
documents that he believed would assist in demonstrating mitigation.  We conclude that the best
resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to consider the documents
Applicant has attached to his brief and issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive.  Other
issues raised by Applicant’s brief are not ripe for adjudication at this time.
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.    
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
Signed: James F. Duffy                    
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board