KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-05524.a1
DATE: 04/27/2007
DATE: April 27, 2007
In Re:
----------
SSN: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-05524
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance due to security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 27, 2006, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
submitted a timely appeal pursuant to the Directive  ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
    
2
Applicant requests that the Board consider evidence not admitted at the hearing, consisting
of statements by physicians describing Applicant’s medical condition.  Medical bills underlie some
of the allegations in the Statement of Reasons.  Applicant’s appeal submission does not make an
allegation of harmful error.
The Board may not consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  Directive  ¶  E3.1.29.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006).  Moreover, the Appeal Board’s
authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge
committed harmful error.  See Directive  ¶  E3.1.32.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin      
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields     
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board