KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant or material
consideration in evaluating security eligibility.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24458.a1
DATE: 01/14/2008
DATE: January 14, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24458
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 April 2, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
The Judge entered Formal Findings in favor of Applicant as to Guideline F.  However, it is clear from the text1
of the decision that the Judge found against Applicant.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 16 unpaid debts.  His statement on appeal does not specifically identify2
which three of those debts he is referring to as having been subsequently paid off.
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On September 6, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H.
Leonard 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 a statement from the Applicant, which updates his
financial situation and indicates that since the hearing he has paid off “three of [his] biggest debts.”2
Applicant also requests that the Board grant him a clearance based upon the favorable evidence in
the case including his 21 years of honorable service in the Navy.  In the alternative he asks that the
Board give him a year to pay off his debts.  In support of his requests Applicant states that without
his clearance he will be unable to work and get his debts paid off.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
It does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or
probationary basis.  See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02-
23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005).  Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have
on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security
eligibility.  See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-19002
at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005).
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.  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: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board