KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not allege that the Judge committed harmful error.  Rather, he submitted
new evidence, which the Board cannot consider.  Furthermore, the adverse impact of an
unfavorable decision is not relevant to evaluating his security clearance eligibility.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-11222.a1
DATE: 09/09/2009
DATE: September 9, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11222
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 3, 2009, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On June 25, 2009, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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, which indicates that Applicant has now sought the services of an
attorney and is in the process of filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Applicant asks that the Board
give him until the end of August to clear up his financial problems—thus allowing him to keep his
job and provide for his family.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
It does not review cases de novo. Nor does it have authority to grant a clearance on a conditional or
probationary basis.  See ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 02-
23805 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2005).  Finally, the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have
on an applicant is not deemed a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security
eligibility.  See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-19002
at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005).
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: Jeffrey D. Billett          
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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