KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.  Applicant did not raise an issue of
harmful error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-08679
DATE: 06/18/2013
DATE: June 18, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-08679
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 5, 2012, 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
requested a hearing.  On February 20, 2013, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge
LeRoy F. Foreman 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—bankruptcy records that are dated subsequently to the close of
the record in this case.
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 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