KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not made a claim of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 08-10274.a1
DATE: 09/11/2009
DATE: September 11, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10274
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 February 9, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Applicant states, “I do not think that the judge made any errors . . .”  Applicant then lists reasons why she1
believes she should be granted a clearance, in effect asking the Board to consider her case de novo.
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On June 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz,
Jr. 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 error on the part of the Judge.   The Appeal1
Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge
committed harmful error.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  See also ISCR Case No. 08-08702 at 1-2 (App.
Bd. Jun. 4, 2009).  It does not review a case 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