KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07592.a1
DATE: 08/07/2009
DATE: August 7, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07592
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 December 16, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On June 4, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, it contains new evidence, principally information about his efforts to resolve his
financial problems, which was not contained in the record.  The Board cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  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.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  Applicant has not
made an allegation of harmful error.  The Board does not review cases de novo.  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: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board