KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Although pro se applicants are
not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected take reasonable and timely steps to preserve
their rights.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-03307.a1
DATE: 05/07/2007
DATE: May 7, 2007
In Re:
-------
SSN: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-03307
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.  On January 20, 2006, DOHA 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 the case be decided on the written record.  On December 27, 2006, after considering the
record,  Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Decision at 3.1
Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 1.2
2
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it
contains new evidence in the form of a statement from Applicant and documentary exhibits which
indicate that Applicant has paid off the debts listed in the SOR.  The Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record.  The Judge
based his decision, in part, on the fact that Applicant had provided insufficient documentary evidence
to corroborate his assertions that he had paid off, disputed, or otherwise resolved the debts at issue.1
The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present
documentation about the satisfaction of specific debts.  See ISCR Case No. 04-10671 at 3 (App. Bd.
May 1, 2006).  In his brief, Applicant states “. . . I didn’t know I needed to provide evidence.”   A2
review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in
Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the government’s
file of relevant material.  Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like a lawyer, they
are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 00-0593 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2001).  If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps
to protect their rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 02-19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003).
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party
has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful
error.  Therefore, 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
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board