KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 06-22633.a1
DATE: 01/14/2008
DATE: January 14, 2008
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22633
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 28, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
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
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E.  That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.1
Applicant elected to have his case decided on the administrative record, but did not file a response to the2
governments file of relevant material (FORM).  His new evidence is his explanatory statement and two documentary
exhibits: a retiree account statement and a canceled check. 
2
29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 which updates Applicant’s financial situation and indicates that he
has made a payment toward the debt set forth in SOR paragraph 1.a.  Applicant also provides new
evidence to support a claim that he is paying his child support, and states that he has sought financial
counseling, set up a repayment plan for his outstanding debts, and will increase the amount of his
payments once he returns to full time work.   The Board cannot consider this new evidence on2
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