KEYWORD: Guideline J
DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited.  The Board does not review a case de novo. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-12013.a1
DATE: 12/10/2008
DATE: December 10, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-12013
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 March 10, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
2
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On September 16, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J.
Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant
to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  The
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 a case 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: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board