ISCR Case No. 15-06018.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline J DIGEST: Under the facts of this case we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief. Adverse decision remanded. CASENO: 15-06018.a1 DATE: 08/09/2017 DATE: August 9, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-06018

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 March 19, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On May 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant has raised an issue of due process. He notes a statement in the Decision that he had not responded to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). He argues that he had provided a response within the time specified but that it did not make it into the record. In presenting his arguments, Applicant asserts matters from outside the record, which we generally cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, in the past we have considered new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015). Applicant has submitted documents that he represents to be the ones he provided. One of the documents is a letter that, among other things, draws attention to an error in the FORM.1 Others address the legal consequences of Applicant’s security-significance conduct. Under the facts of this case we conclude that the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge to consider the documents that Applicant has attached to his appeal brief. Other issues that Applicant has raised in his brief are not ripe for consideration at this time.

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

1 Applicant notes that the introductory paragraph of the FORM cites a name other than Applicant’s as the subject of this adjudication. Applicant speculates that his own response might have been placed in another person’s file by mistake.