KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant states that she submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not
make it into the record.  At the hearing, the Judge left the record open for 14 days for either party
to submit additional matters.  In the decision, the Judge indicated that neither party submitted
additional matters.  In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she submitted additional matters
before the deadline, which were received by Department Counsel and forwarded to the Judge. 
She also notes the decision does not refer to any of those additional matters.  We are unable to
identify any post-hearing matters in the record. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 17-01387.a1
DATE: 04/24/2018
DATE: April 24, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01387
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
26, 2017, 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 February 1, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant states that she submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it
into the record.  At the hearing, the Judge left the record open for 14 days for either party to submit
additional matters.  Tr. at 112-113.  In the decision, the Judge indicated that neither party submitted
additional matters.  In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she submitted additional matters before
the deadline, which were received by Department Counsel and forwarded to the Judge.  She also
notes the decision does not refer to any of those additional matters.  We are unable to identify any
post-hearing matters in the record.1  Applicant also contends the Judge erred in making findings of
fact about her education record, history of employment, and that her stepfather testified at the
hearing. See Decision at 4.  For example, in the appeal brief, she states that she does not have a
stepfather.  Given her contention that the record is incomplete, we conclude the best resolution of
this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. 
Applicant has raised other issues that are not ripe for consideration at this time. 
1  In her appeal brief, Applicant did not provide copies of the documents that were supposedly contained in
her post-hearing submission.  However, she did present some documents post-dating the Judge’s decision that she
refers to as “new evidence.”  Appeal Brief at 1. 
2
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
3