KEYWORD: Guideline M; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-03606.a1
DATE: 05/23/2007
DATE: May 23, 2007
In Re:
-------
SSN: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-03606
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 July 18, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline M (Misuse of Information
Technology Systems) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided upon the
written record.  On November 27, 2006, after considering the record,  Administrative Judge Shari
Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed the Judge’s
Applicant asserts the Judge erred in the synopsis when she stated Applicant had improperly used a government1
computer to access pornographic and foreign web sites, when in fact Applicant had improperly used a company computer
to access those sites.  The Board has previously noted that absent unusual circumstances, a flaw or failing in the synopsis
of a Judge’s decision is not likely to be harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-06338 at 3 (App. Bd. Sept. 7, 2004).
In this case, the SOR alleged Applicant had improperly used a company computer to access pornographic and foreign
web sites.  Applicant had admitted to the allegations, and the Judge made sustainable findings in that regard in text of
her decision.  Accordingly, the error noted by Applicant is harmless.
2
unfavorable clearance decision.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement from the Applicant clarifying his answer
to paragraph 1.d of the SOR.  Applicant also describes his ongoing efforts to improve his behavior
and work performance, and to obtain mental and behavioral counseling from a credentialed
professional.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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.  It does not review cases de novo.  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
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board