KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie
showing that he submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record.
Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a
new decision. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 16-03068.a1
DATE: 05/16/2018
DATE: May 16, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03068
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
December 2, 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 hearing. 
On January 25, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 evidence to the Judge that did not make it into the
record.  Although this is new evidence, we will consider it on the limited issue of due process.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05302 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 29, 2017).  A significant portion of the documents
that Applicant has attached to his brief post-date the Judge’s decision and, therefore, could not have
been submitted during the pendency of the record.  However, considering the record as a whole, we
conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that he submitted some evidence that the
Judge did not include in the record. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for
a new decision.  Department Counsel states that he has no objection to a remand under the facts of
this case.  Accordingly, we remand the case to the Judge to consider the evidence that Applicant
attempted to submit prior to the close of the record.  Other issues raised by Applicant in his brief are
not ripe for consideration at this time.
2
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.    
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale                  
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3