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: 06-24750.a1
DATE: 11/23/2007
DATE: November 23, 2007
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24750
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 March 30, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
Applicant also states that if she loses her clearance, she will be forced to go on unemployment again and will1
not be able to afford her daily medications.  The adverse impact of a clearance decision on an applicant is not relevant
or material to an applicant’s security eligibility.  See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005).
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On July 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T.
Williams 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 in the form of a statement from Applicant and attachments that
indicate Applicant has received a pay raise, has paid off one of her outstanding debts, and has
contacted her creditors to make arrangements to pay off the remaining ones.   The Board cannot1
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: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board