FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline j; Guideline I; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Applicant has not demonstrated
error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-22986.a1
DATE: 11/26/2008
DATE: November 26, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22986
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 9, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline I
2
(Psychological Conditions), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 25,
2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.
On appeal, Applicant restates portions of her hearing testimony and resubmits some of the
documents she submitted at the hearing.  However, Applicant also includes new evidence in her
appeal which was not presented at the hearing.  The Board cannot consider any new evidence on
appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 06-18998 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 9, 2007).  An appealing party must demonstrate error on the part
of the Judge.  In this case, Applicant has not demonstrated such error.  Applicant has not
demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s
decision is sustainable.
In her appeal, Applicant includes a request for a probationary clearance.  The Board has no
authority to grant such a request.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-22044 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2008).
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Chief Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple       
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin        
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board