KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-00346.a1
DATE: 04/13/2009
DATE: April 13, 2009
In Re:
---
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-00346
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 13, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On
January 8, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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.  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 D. Hipple             
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                   
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board