KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24153.a1
DATE: 04/11/2008
DATE: April 11, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24153
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 26, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and
Applicant’s brief only states: “I am appealing the Administrative Judge’s decision.”1
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 16, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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.   The1
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: Michael D. Hipple    
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields      
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board