KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant requests the Board give him more time to address his debts.  The Board does
not have that authority.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-07892.a1
DATE: 09/07/2011
DATE: September 7, 2011
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-07892
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 16, 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
2
requested a hearing.  On June 20, 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Applicant requests that the Board give him more time (until the end of the year) to pay off his
remaining debts.  Applicant is requesting relief that the Board has no authority to grant.  See ISCR
Case No. 10-00983 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 17, 2011).  In essence, Applicant is seeking a continuance
to allow him to develop additional favorable evidence.  An applicant is not entitled to a delayed or
deferred adjudication of his or her security eligibility.  See ISCR Case No. 09-02926 at 2 (App. Bd.
May 11, 2010).  In making his request, Applicant makes factual assertions about anticipated post-
hearing developments which he states support the eventual granting of his security clearance.
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: 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