KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-11498.a1
DATE: 02/13/2008
DATE: February 13, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11498
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 27, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence),
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
2
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
September 26, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 which the Board cannot consider 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: Michael D. Hipple    
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board