KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.  Appeal Board
cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 09-00776.a1
DATE: 06/23/2011
DATE: June 23, 2011
In Re:
---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-00776
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 March 9, 2010, 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
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 1, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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, it contains new evidence, in the form of a statement by the Applicant that his situation has
improved as a result of his filing for bankruptcy.
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.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error
on the part of the Judge.  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