KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 16-00599.a1
DATE: 03/07/2018
DATE: March 07, 2018
In Re:
------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00599
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
September 15, 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 November 28, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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 February 2017, Applicant submitted a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM).  On November 6, 2017, due to the period that elapsed since Applicant submitted
his FORM response, the Judge sent an email to the parties reopening the record until November 20,
2017, to permit Applicant the opportunity to submit additional matters.  On November 7, 2017,
Applicant responded by indicating that he intended to submit a couple of items.  In the Decision, the
Judge noted that Applicant neither responded further nor submitted additional information.
In his Appeal Brief, Applicant provided a copy of an email that he purportedly sent to the
Judge and Department Counsel on November 20, 2017.  This email contained a narrative statement
and an attached file.  Applicant also provided copies of the documents that were supposedly
contained in the attached file.1  In a reply brief, Department Counsel indicated 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 consider the documents attached to Applicant’s brief and
issue a new Decision in accordance with the Directive. 
1 None of these documents post-date November 20, 2017. 
2
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
3