KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-02168.a1
DATE: 11/25/2011
DATE: November 25, 2011
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-02168
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 24, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 26, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley
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 does assert that an attorney he had retained failed to forward documentation pertinent to
his security clearance adjudication to the Judge for his consideration.  The Judge had agreed to leave
the record open for a period of time after the hearing for the submission of additional documents.
A single document entitled, “Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing” with a cover letter from Applicant’s
security clearance attorney was submitted and accepted into evidence.  The Judge alluded to this
evidence in his decision, but also noted the lack of bankruptcy filing schedules, the lack of a Chapter
13 bankruptcy plan, and the lack of evidence of tax filings.  The record supports the Judge’s
characterization of the evidence.  On appeal, Applicant specifically requests the Board to allow him
to submit new evidence for consideration.  Applicant states that it is his understanding that his
security clearance attorney failed to forward to the Judge documents his bankruptcy attorney had
faxed to the security clearance attorney.
By explicit mandate, the Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  Additionally, 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.
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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board