KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to evidence that was not part of the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-03198.a1
DATE: 03/05/2010
DATE: March 5, 2010
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03198
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 June 16, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 12, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 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.
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Concurring opinion of Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra’anan
The Judge did not err.  However, the posture of the case is somewhat unusual, and I am not
sanguine about affirming the result without comment.  The SOR alleged only two delinquent debts
in excess of $1,000: one for about $4,000 and one for about $14,000.  Applicant was pro se and
clearly not familiar with legal procedures.  She reported at the hearing that the alleged $14,000 was
not a debt and was just an error.  She did not bring any corroboration to the hearing.  The Judge left
the record open but Applicant did not supply the corroboration by the close of the record.
Accordingly, the Judge, in her Whole Person Analysis focused on the absence of corroboration for
Applicant’s claims on her largest debt “representing 65% of her listed debts” (Decision page 8) and
reached an adverse result.
On appeal Applicant reports that she sought corroboration before close of the record but that
it did not arrive until after the close of the record (although before the Judge issued her decision).
If Applicant’s corroboration would really support her claim, then I am not sure that her actual
delinquent debts would have raised security concerns, and I suspect the Judge might have analyzed
the case differently.
3
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan               
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board