KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Board’s authority is limited.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-11901.a1
DATE: 02/20/2009
DATE: February 20, 2009 
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11901
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 6, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
2
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
December 10, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 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.  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.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  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