KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-17520.a1
DATE: 09/20/2007
DATE: September 20, 2007
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17520
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 August 17, 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 March 19, 2007, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Decision at 5.
1
Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 1.
2
2
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 which summarizes his recent
efforts to pay off the debts listed in the SOR.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence on
appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record, and then did
not respond to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM).  The Judge based her decision,
in part, on the fact that: “Applicant provided no persuasive evidence to rebut the financial concerns
specified in the SOR . . .”   The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect1
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 was unaware I needed to
send proof.”   A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights2
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
lawyers, 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.  The Board does not review a case 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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