KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-02916.a1
DATE: 02/12/2009
DATE: February 12, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-02916
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 May 12, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On December 4, 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.
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of an explanatory statement in which Applicant asserts
that he has now paid off three of his outstanding debts and is making arrangements to resolve the rest
of them, by either paying them off or disputing them.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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 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