KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant made no assertion of harmful error.  She did submit additional evidence not
contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 09-02404.a1
DATE: 07/19/2010
DATE: July 19, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-02404
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 December 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 April 30, 2010, after reviewing the
record, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Without claiming that the Judge erred, Applicant makes a factual statement on appeal that she has never lost1
her home to foreclosure.  A review of the Judge’s decision reveals that the Judge made a finding of fact that Applicant
lost her home to foreclosure.  To the extent that Applicant’s factual statement can be construed as a claim of error, it fails
to establish error on the part of the Judge.  Applicant submitted a document entitled “Forbearance
Agreement/Stipulation” as part of her submission to the File of Relevant Material.  The document purports to be an
agreement between Applicant and her lender to cure her mortgage loan default and reinstate her mortgage to good
standing.  The Judge specifically mentioned the document in his decision and noted that it was an unexecuted document.
The document contains Applicant’s signature but not the signature of the mortgagee.   
Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.1
Applicant does offer additional written materials which she asserts support a reversal of the Judge’s
adverse security clearance decision.  However, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.
See 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.  The
Board does not review cases de novo.  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: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board