KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not made a claim of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-18411.a1
DATE: 02/15/2008
DATE: February 15, 2008
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18411
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 9, 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 a hearing.  On September 27, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 
2
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Instead, it contains new evidence in the form of statements that Applicant intends to take financial
management classes and that he has avoided acquiring new debt.  The Board cannot 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
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
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board