KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-00533.a1
DATE: 04/26/2012
DATE: April 26, 2012
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-00533
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 September 1, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
1The Judge’s decision notes that the record contains no corroboration for such claims.
2
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 a hearing.  On February 13, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan
Metz, Jr. 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
states simply that he is appealing the Judge’s decision and he makes reference to his favorable
security history, the progress he is making in paying back taxes owed the IRS1, and the fact that
losing his clearance would take away his current livelihood.  
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: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board