FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline G
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Applicant does not appeal the
Judge unfavorable findings and conclusions under Guideline G.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-15663.a1
DATE: 11/25/2008
DATE: November 25, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-15663
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 April 9, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations except two of the debts.1
Applicant identifies as a factual error the Judge’s statement that Applicant had been steadily employed since2
February 2000.  While there are imprecise references in the transcript to unemployment, Applicant’s detailed
employment history in his appeal constitutes new evidence.  However, even if the Judge’s statement about Applicant’s
steady employment were considered to be in error, it would be harmless because correction of that statement would  not
likely change the Judge’s decision. 
2
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 17, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s ultimate decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
The security concerns identified by the government in the SOR involve 15 debts under
Guideline F, as well as intoxication and three alcohol-related arrests under Guideline G .   The Judge1
made formal findings against Applicant as to all of the allegations under Guideline G and as to 12
of the 15 debts under Guideline F.  In his appeal, Applicant raises arguments only with regard to the
Judge’s findings and conclusions under Guideline F.  The appeal primarily consists of information
not presented at the hearing—i.e., new evidence.  This evidence includes steps Applicant has taken
since the hearing to resolve his financial situation, such as contacting creditors and making payments
on the repayment plan initiated shortly before the hearing.   The Board cannot consider this2
information because the Directive does not allow the Board to consider new evidence.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29; and ISCR Case No. 06-22628 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2007).
Applicant presents no appeal to the Judge’s unfavorable findings and conclusions under
Guideline G.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  See, e,g., ISCR Case No. 06-18998 at 3
(App. Bd. Nov. 9, 2007).  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate
unfavorable decision is sustainable.
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
   
Signed: Michael D. Hipple          
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board