KEYWORD: Guideline E DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-05756.a1 DATE: 04/26/2012 DATE: April 26, 2012 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-05756 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 August 16, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of 1To the extent that Applicant is seeking a new hearing, he has not demonstrated a justification for such a remedy. New hearings are only granted when there has been a showing that a party was prejudiced by a significant defect in the prior proceeding, such as a denial of a fundamental right. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-15508 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2007). 2 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 9, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error based upon the record that was before him. Directive ¶ E3.1.21. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.09-06672 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2011).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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board