WPC %_WZU'^'iJ{^4ohQĪ`aӫi; !-yoNקY8߇xWݢo*c/ 尫98課g lkgy%%FM'5,;'r9'MMs6= I[o Vxa@aIYO-}C}^b%Ǿ?k:4Tm>8ܟk57 P#dlc(D bWiwa{!j<@\FSwtp=YL${Z#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z NC 0E E  0D B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,] K;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2,$ !USUS.,   XX      0    ,$USUS.,PXX      1    _ApplicantnotesthattheintroductoryparagraphoftheFORMcitesanameotherthanApplicantsasthesubject  ofthisadjudication.Applicantspeculatesthathisownresponsemighthavebeenplacedinanotherpersonsfileby t mistake.(#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG;GuidelineJ  DIGEST:Underthefactsofthiscaseweconcludethatthebestresolutionistoremandthecase  totheJudgetoconsiderthedocumentsthatApplicanthasattachedtohisappealbrief.Adverse t decisionremanded. ` _CASENO_:1506018.a1 8  DATE:08/09/2017  `    `     h      p DATE:August9,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1506018 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &g%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0,  Prose #XX%&g# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On f&!0 March19,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat R'"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption)andGuidelineJ >(#2 (CriminalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) *)z$3 (Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthewrittenrecord.OnMay17,2017,after *f%4 consideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge +R&5 _Shari_ԀDamdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealedpursuantto +>'6 DirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,*(7  -)8   Applicanthasraisedanissueofdueprocess.HenotesastatementintheDecisionthathe  hadnotrespondedtotheFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM).Hearguesthathehadprovideda  responsewithinthetimespecifiedbutthatitdidnotmakeitintotherecord.Inpresentinghis  arguments,Applicantassertsmattersfromoutsidetherecord,whichwegenerallycannotconsider. t DirectiveE3.1.29.However,inthepastwehaveconsiderednewevidenceinsofarasitbearsupon ` thresholdissuessuchasdueprocess.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1400812at2(App.Bd.Jul.8,2015). L    Applicanthassubmitteddocumentsthatherepresentstobetheonesheprovided.Oneof $ t thedocumentsisaletterthat,amongotherthings,drawsattentiontoanerrorintheFORM. #  1      ׀Others  ` addressthelegalconsequencesofApplicantssecuritysignificanceconduct.Underthefactsofthis  L  caseweconcludethatthebestresolutionistoremandthecasetotheJudgetoconsiderthe  8  documentsthatApplicanthasattachedtohisappealbrief.OtherissuesthatApplicanthasraisedin $  hisbriefarenotripeforconsiderationatthistime.   @( Order      TheDecisionis REMANDED . p    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ $t    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody     `     h   JamesE.Moody     `     h   AdministrativeJudge p    `     h   Member,AppealBoard \     `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__  $\"    `     h   JamesF.Duffy $H #    `     h   AdministrativeJudge %4!$    `     h   Member,AppealBoard