KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: On appeal Applicant asserts that after the hearing he mistakenly sent evidence to the
wrong e-mail address which is why the Judge never received it.  The Board cannot consider
Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  Applicant has not asserted that there was a harmful
resulting from actions taken by DOHA personnel.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 09-06930.a1
DATE: 01/21/2011
DATE: January 24, 2011
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06930
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 May 17, 2010, 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 a hearing.  On October 29, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive
¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge held the record open to give Applicant time to
submit additional documentary evidence concerning his financial situation.  Tr. at 61.  No additional
evidence was received before the record was closed and the decision issued.  Decision at 2.  On
appeal, Applicant asserts that he mistakenly e-mailed his additional evidence to the wrong address,
and encloses copies of the misaddressed e-mail and the additional evidence.  He argues that the
Judge’s decision is in error because the Judge’s failure to receive the additional evidence would be
viewed as a lack of interest or dedication on Applicant’s part to follow directions.    
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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.  It does not review cases de novo. Although he uses the
term “error,” Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error resulting from actions taken by
the Judge or Department Counsel.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security
clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board