KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant fails to explain why he submit documentation he now references when given
an opportunity to do so.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-07091.a1
DATE: 08/11/2010
DATE: August 11, 2010
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-07091
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 October 28, 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
2
requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On May 17, 2010, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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, Applicant asks the Board to reverse the Judge’s decision and give him an opportunity to send
in additional evidence including leave and earnings statements, pay stubs, evidence of debt payment,
and character reference letters, which he believes would be sufficient to change the outcome of the
case.
In this case, Applicant elected to have a decision based upon the written record, and then
responded to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) with two items of documentary
evidence. The Judge based her decision, in part, on the fact that: “[Applicant] did not provide
evidence that he paid, attempted to pay, or establish a repayment plan for any debt . . .” Decision at
5.  The Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present
documentation about the satisfaction of specific debts. See ISCR Case No. 04-10671 at 3 (App. Bd.
May 1, 2006).  A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights
set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to the
government’s file of relevant material. Applicant’s brief contains no explanation as to why he did
not submit the documentation which he now references when given an opportunity to due so.
Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely,
reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0593 at 4
(App. Bd. May 14, 2001). If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights, that
failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-19896 at 6
(App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003).  
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Nor does it
review cases de novo.  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: Jean E. Smallin       
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board