KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that he did submit a response to the Judge’s October 18 email.  He
has attached to his brief a copy of an email from himself dated October 30, 2017, addressed to
the Judge and to Department Counsel. We conclude that the best resolution of this case is to
remand it to the Judge to reopen the record and permit Applicant to submit to him a copy of the
attachment actually contained in his email response. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 16-02850.a1
DATE: 03/14/2018
DATE: March 14, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-02850
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 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 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.
Applicant contends that he submitted information to the Judge that did not make it into the
record.  Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge.
Applicant contends that he submitted evidence to the Judge about the status of his mortgage
account, which was the largest of the three debts alleged in the SOR.  In presenting his appeal he
includes documents and information from outside the record.  Although we generally do not
consider new evidence on appeal, we will do so on threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due
process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01129 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017).
The Judge reopened the record due to the time that had elapsed between Applicant’s
response to the FORM and the assignment of the case to him.  Applicant submitted some
information, which the Judge admitted.  On October 18, 2017, the Judge stated by email to Applicant
that he would hold the record open until October 30, 2017, for Applicant to submit “[d]ocuments
establishing that your mortgage is current . . . as well as any documents regarding the current status
of the other 2 debts in the SOR.”  Hearing Exhibit III.  The Judge found that Applicant did not
provide any further documentation.  Decision at 2.
Applicant contends that he did submit a response to the Judge’s October 18 email.  He has
attached to his brief a copy of an email from himself dated October 30, 2017, addressed to the Judge
and to Department Counsel.  This email states, inter alia, that Applicant was providing a copy of
his “most recent mortgage statement.”  On the page following this email, Applicant has attached a
document from his mortgage lender.  This document references payments made on a mortgage
account that appears to be the one alleged in the SOR, insofar as the account number has the same
last four digits as the mortgage debt disclosed in Applicant’s credit report, although four of these
payments post-date Applicant’s October 30 email, of which two of them post-date the Judge’s
Decision.  Three of the payments reflected in the document are dated prior to the October 30
deadline. As it stands, Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he sent an email to the Judge
on October 30, 2017, that included an attachment about his mortgage account.  This was within the
time frame that the Judge had established for the submission of additional documentation.  Although
this attachment obviously could not have included information beyond the date the email was sent,
it may well have included information about the status of Applicant’s mortgage account as of
October 30.  We conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge to reopen
the record and permit Applicant to submit to him a copy of the attachment actually contained in his
email response.  Other issues raised by Applicant are not ripe for adjudication at this time.
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: Charles C. Hale              
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3