KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-05950.a1
DATE: 10/09/2009
DATE: October 9, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-05950
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 January 28, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
2
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 July 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall,
Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no substantive matters and makes no  assertion of harmful
error on the part of the Judge.  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.
Additionally, Applicant’s appeal submission makes reference to matters that were not part of the
record below.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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: Jeffery D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board