KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not assert harmful error by the Judge.  The Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 10-09072.a1
DATE: 12/08/2011
DATE: December 8, 2011
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-09072
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 April 14, 2011, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On September 23, 2011, after considering
the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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, based
on the record that was before him.  Rather, it contains a combination of record evidence and new
1To the extent that Applicant’s brief could be construed as arguing that the record evidence would support a
favorable application of the mitigating conditions, such an argument is insufficient to demonstrate that the Judge
erred.  The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011).
evidence, in the form of documents dated subsequent to the Judge’s decision, showing Applicant’s
payment of specific debts.  Applicant states that she prepared her reply in response to the Judge’s
adverse decision, and that the newly proffered documents demonstrate that the Judge erred in
reaching his decision.
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.1  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