KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant did not respond to the government’s file of relevant material.  A party
cannot reasonably expect a judge’s decision to be based on evidence which was not before the
Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-06802.a1
DATE: 08/05/2009
DATE: August 5, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06802
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 4, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons 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
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On May 29, 2009, after
reviewing the record, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the Judge was not
current.  Applicant sought to acquire new evidence for purpose of the appeal.  The Board is unable
to consider information that was not part of the record, because the Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
 The Judge’s decision was based entirely on the government’s File of Relevant Material
(FORM) including Applicant’s response to the SOR.  In February 2009, Applicant received a copy
of the FORM and had the opportunity to submit materials to further refute, extenuate, or mitigate
the information in the FORM.  At that time, Applicant could have submitted any materials he
thought were more current than the evidence in the FORM when he received it.  Applicant did not
respond to the FORM.  Applicant has not demonstrated error on this issue.
As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the
favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.   A party cannot reasonably
expect a Judge’s decision to be based on evidence which was not before the Judge.  The Judge’s
decision is sustainable. 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple     
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board