KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07341.a1
DATE: 05/28/2009
DATE: May 28, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07341
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 November 10, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On April 6, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
In his brief, Applicant states: “ . . . the Judge did not do any thing wrong. “ Appellant’s Brief at 1.1
Decision at 4.2
Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 1.3
Decision at 2.4
2
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.   Rather, it1
contains new evidence in the form of a statement from Applicant and four character reference letters.
The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record.  The Judge
based his decision, in part, on the fact that Applicant provided no character evidence, evidence of
financial counseling, or evidence to corroborate his assertions that he was paying off his creditors.2
In his brief, Applicant states “. . . I did not know that information had to be supplied for his decision.
No one told me that I had to have character letters or documentation of bills.”   A review of the3
record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order
10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the government’s file of relevant
material (FORM).  Applicant received the FORM on January 22, 2009.  The FORM spelled out at
Section VIII that Applicant had the opportunity “ . . . to submit documentary information in rebuttal
or to explain adverse information in the FORM” and Applicant submitted a written response to it
within the required 30-day time period.  His response was admitted into the record without objection
by the Government.   Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are4
expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 00-0593 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2001).  If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to
protect their rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 02-19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003).  Applicant’s argument does not persuade the Board that
the case should be reversed or remanded.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03307 at 2 (App. Bd. May
7, 2007).
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.  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: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board