FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 06-10663.a1
DATE: 10/03/2007
DATE: October 3, 2007
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-10663
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 16, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
Applicant requested that the case be decided upon the written record, and then did not respond to the1
government’s file of relevant material.  The Judge based her decision upon the record that was before her, noting that:
“With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation to overcome the case against him.”  Decision at 5.
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On April 11, 2007, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains new evidence: (a) a document from the Internal Revenue Service showing the
current amount still owed by Applicant, (b) a document from the State of Wisconsin showing
Applicant has paid off his outstanding back taxes, interests, penalties and fees, and (c) a statement
by the Applicant explaining the origin and circumstances of his financial problems.   The Board1
cannot consider this 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: 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
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board