WPC b0l ZTK ݍ۾$`Tf,tsޠC# qN`]qnGGsBvln;pd1XR9!;~TE6ՅM ~U1gmZO^ YO/{ƺ, 6F:2[g-*Z$:8(#2 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision *)z$3 onthewrittenrecord.OnJune21,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings *f%4 andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeJenniferI.GoldsteindeniedApplicantsrequestfora +R&5 securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +>'6   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whetherApplicantwasplacedonreasonable -)8 noticeofthesecurityconcerninhiscaseandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,  capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weremandthecasetotheJudge.    TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  t   Thereweretwoallegationsinthe_SOR_.TheJudgeresolvedoneofthem,amortgage L  account,inApplicantsfavor.Sheresolvedtheother,acreditcarddebtofalittleover$10,300, 8  againsthim.TheJudgestatedthatApplicantdidnotdemonstratethathehadresolvedthisdebt, $ t havingclaimedwithoutcorroborationthatitwasconnectedinsomewaywiththemortgage.She  ` concludedthatApplicantdidnotshowresponsibleactioninregardtothecreditcardaccount,nor  L  didhepresentevidenceofagoodfaithefforttopayit.TheJudgenotedthatthe_SOR_Ԁdescribedthis  8  accountasamortgage,althoughApplicantscreditreportshowsthatitisacreditcard._ #  1      _Ԁ $    Discussion      ApplicantsAppealBriefincludesnewevidence,whichwecannotconsider.Directive   E3.1.29.However,wewillconsiderApplicantsnewevidencetotheextentthatitbearsuponthe p dueprocessissuethathehasraised.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1601129at2(App.Bd.Aug7,2017). \ Applicantnotesthatthe_SOR_Ԁmisidentifiedthecreditcarddebtasamortgageaccount.Heargues H thatheassumedthat,foraccountingpurposes,thecreditorhadsplitthisaccountintotwo,andhe 4 respondedtothe_SOR_ԀandtotheFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM)onthebeliefthattheonly  p concerninhiscasearosefromthemortgage.  \   Wefindthisargumentpersuasive.Although,astheJudgefound,oneofApplicantscredit 4 reportsdescribesthisdebtasacreditcard,the_SOR_Ԁerroneouslystatedthatitarosefromamortgage   agreement._b #  2      _ԀUnderthefactsofthiscase,weconcludethatApplicantreasonably,thougherroneously,   believedthatheneededtoaddressonlyhismortgageaccountandneednotprovideevidenceabout  otherdebts.Accordingly,thebestresolutionofthiscaseistoremandittotheJudgetogive  Applicantanopportunitytoaddressthecreditcarddebt,afterwhichshewillissueanewDecision  inaccordancewiththeDirective.Otherissuesraisedinthisappealarenotripeforconsideration.  l @( Order     TheDecisionis REMANDED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___