KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-09329.a1
DATE: 04/10/2012
DATE: April 10, 2012
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-09329
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 May 4, 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
2
requested a hearing.  On January 25, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
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.  He
makes assertions regarding his credit history, the factors that contributed to it, and the reasons that
he should be granted a security clearance.  He asks the Board to show him leniency and compassion
by reinstating his clearance.    
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: Jean E. Smallin                    
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board