KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-07789.a1
DATE: 10/10/2012
DATE: October 10, 2012
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-07789
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 10, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 18, 2012, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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
asserted that he is taking action to address his outstanding debts and he has engaged a financial
assistance company to help him obtain good credit.  Some of these representations are not contained
in 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.  The Board does not review
cases de novo.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is
AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board