KEYWORD: Guideline 
DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-09349.a1
DATE: 01/12/2012
DATE: January 12, 2012
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-09349
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 June 2, 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
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested that his case be adjudicated on the written record.  On September 27, 2011, after the close
of the record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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.  His
brief asserts that he has resolved his financial issues, and sets forth other reasons why his case
should be adjudicated favorably.  
Some of Applicant’s representations contain facts not part of the record below.  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