KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated “See payment plan attached” in responding
to the allegations. The Judge acknowledged Applicant’s statements about having a payment plan
for both of those debts, but noted no documents were attached to his answer. In his appeal brief,
Applicant provided a copy of a payment plan that predates the SOR and contends that he
provided it with his SOR Answer. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 16-01238.a1
DATE: 09/28/2017
DATE: September 28, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01238
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
20, 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 decision
on the written record.  On July 14, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Leroy F. Foreman 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).
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated “See payment plan attached” in responding to
the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.  In the decision, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s
statements about having a payment plan for both of those debts, but noted no documents were
attached to his answer.  In his appeal brief, Applicant provided a copy of a payment plan that 
predates the SOR and contends that he provided it with his SOR Answer.  In the reply brief,
Department Counsel concedes that Applicant’s  brief contains “a reasonable proffer of the possibility
that Applicant had sent amplifying documents that may have been misplaced . . .” and indicates that
he does not oppose a remand.  Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this
appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for him to reopen the record and collect from the parties
and consider as appropriate the documents which Applicant claims to have submitted.  Such
consideration would, of course, include soliciting the arguments of the parties. 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