KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the
appealing party has alleged harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 06-00635.a1
DATE: 01/17/2008
DATE: January 17, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-00635
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 30, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraphs 1.h, l.j, l.l, 1.n, and 1.o, and Guideline E.  Those1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
In his brief, Applicant acknowledges that there are four open accounts that are not enrolled in his debt program.2
He states that those accounts will be paid when the creditors can be located and contacted.
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record.  On August
29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
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 an explanatory statement and two documentary
exhibits, which update Applicant’s financial situation and indicate that six of Applicant’s debts are
currently being paid through a debt management agent.   Applicant also summarizes the favorable2
evidence presented below.   
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: Jeffrey D. Billett    
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin       
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board