KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07473.a1
DATE: 08/05/2009
DATE: August 5, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07473
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 November 4, 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 a hearing.  On May 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry
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 documentary exhibits, which indicate that Applicant
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy subsequent to the decision in his case.
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
Member, 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