KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-02808.a1
DATE: 03/06/2008
DATE: March 6, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02808
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 May 29, 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 October 31, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to the 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, Applicant submits copies of items already in the record, as well as  new evidence updating
his financial situation.  
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  It’s authority
to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed
harmful error.  The Board 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: Jean E. Smallin      
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields     
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board