KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant did not allege harmful error by the Judge.  The Appeal Board cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 10-02819.a1
DATE: 02/04/2013
DATE: February 4, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-02819
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 July 3, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On December 6, 2012,
after considering the record, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 by the Judge.  Rather, it
contains new evidence concerning Applicant’s bankruptcy filing.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Our authority to review cases is limited to those in which the
2
appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge.  Accordingly, 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