KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not alleged harmful error by the Judge.  He has submitted new evidence
which the Board cannot consider.  Adverse decision Affirmed
CASENO: 11-08981.a1
DATE: 04/11/2013
DATE: April 11, 2013
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-08981
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 31, 2012, DoD 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 hearing.  On January 31, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains new evidence, in the form of four letters to a creditor.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Judge had granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open for one month to allow
Applicant the opportunity to submit additional evidence.  Applicant made a timely submission of
eight documents, which the Judge admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit A.  Tr. 66-67;
Decision at 2.  The four letters to the creditor were not part of that submission.  In his brief,
Applicant avers that he needed extra time to find the letters because they were buried in a box after
he had moved to his new house.  However, there is nothing in Applicant’s post hearing submission
to indicate that he needed more time to locate evidence and that additional documents would be
forthcoming.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error
on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D Billett           
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board