KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 10-03757.a1
DATE: 09/13/2011
DATE: September 13, 2011
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-03757
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 September 1, 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 July 5, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall,
Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive
¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant devotes most of his brief to arguing that he is not responsible for the $12,386
unpaid debt alleged in SOR paragraph 1.n.  He states that he has thoroughly investigated the matter,
and the company in question has no record of him owing them any money.  He surmises that the
debt may actually be owed by a different individual with a similar name.  Some of Applicant’s
assertions in this regard constitute new evidence which the Board cannot consider on appeal.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, the thrust of his argument corresponds to his representations at the
hearing, and in his decision the Judge found in Applicant’s favor with respect to that factual
allegation.  Accordingly, Applicant’s representations on this issue do not constitute an assertion of
harmful error on the part of the Judge.
In the balance of his brief, Applicant states that if he does not receive a clearance, he will not
be able to start his job and pay off the remainder of his debts.  The Board has previously noted that
the adverse impact an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not deemed a relevant
consideration in evaluating his clearance eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11222 at 2 (App.
Bd. Sep. 9, 2009).  Applicant also states that his company has not paid him for services which he
has already rendered, and requests the Board’s assistance in securing his back wages.  The Board
has no jurisdiction with respect to such matters.
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: Jeffrey D. Billett          
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board