KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-08679.a1
DATE: 10/02/2009
DATE: October 2, 2009
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-08679
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 26, 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
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On June 26, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 by the Judge.  Rather,
it contains new evidence not contained in the record concerning her marital separation, her husband’s
employment difficulties, and her trustworthiness.  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