KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-12181.a1
DATE: 07/08/2008
DATE: July 8, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-12181
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 October 28, 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
The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to Guideline E and SOR paragraph 1.g.  Those
1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
Applicant asks only that his “request for a security clearance be reviewed again.”
2
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 15, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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.   The2
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