KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a
more detailed response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right
to do so. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08755.a1
DATE: 02/27/2018
DATE: February 27, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08755
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 May
19, 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 October 24, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then filed a short
response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), only one sentence of which
addressed his financial situation.  The Judge based her adverse decision in the case in large measure
on the fact that Applicant did not provide documentary evidence as to financial counseling or his
budget; character and trustworthiness; or professional performance or track record with respect to
handling sensitive information and observing security procedures.  Decision at 3.  On appeal,
Applicant offers new evidence in the form of a narrative statement describing his financial situation
along with documents providing account details of SOR debts and his credit score.  The Board
cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant also asserts that he did not comprehend “the full gravity of this review” and what
information he needed to provide, and requests that he be given a new hearing in person.  “New
hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant
defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right.”  ISCR Case No. 10-05756
at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2012).  Applicant has not demonstrated a justification for such a remedy. 
A review of the record indicates that Applicant submitted two documents in which he declined a
hearing (one in June 2016 and another in September 2016).  He received a copy of the FORM,
accompanied by a DOHA cover letter, in October 2016.  The cover letter in particular stated that
Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover
Letter, dated October 17, 2016.  The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth
“objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.”  Accordingly,
Applicant received the due process afforded by the Directive and his failure to make a more detailed
response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-05094 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).
The Board does not review a case de novo.  Applicant has not established any harmful error
on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale          
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board