KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-00914.a1
DATE: 07/19/2013
DATE: July 19, 2013
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-00914
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 16, 2012, DoD 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
2
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant elected to have his case
decided on the written record.  On March 26, 2013, 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 makes no explicit assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
She makes a statement, however, wherein she asserted that she is an American citizen and it was her
duty and honor to serve with the United States Army as a linguist.  She stated that she stood by the
side of soldiers and made sure to do her job as a linguist to keep everyone safe.  These assertions
made by Applicant on appeal go beyond the evidence in the record below, although they do serve
to point out that Applicant is working as a linguist in Afghanistan, which is included in the record,
and is a fact that the Judge’s decision does not contain.  The Judge’s failure to mention Applicant’s
service as a linguist is not harmful on this record, even if the Board construes it as error.    
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: 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