KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-10676.a1
DATE: 08/06/2013
DATE: August 6, 2013
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-10676
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
December 3, 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
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant elected to have his case
decided on the written record.  On June 13, 2013, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals  (DOHA)
2
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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
states his understanding that access to classified information is a fiduciary relationship with the
Government, and acknowledges that he has some debts.  He indicates that he is responsible and
trustworthy and is protective of classified information.  He states that he and his wife will take care
of all their financial debts, and that their payments on a Chapter 13 bankruptcy are now up to date.
Applicant lists the creditors to be paid under the Chapter 13 Plan and states that he has established
payment plans with the IRS and the state tax board.  Applicant’s assertions are not contained in the
record below, and a document submitted with his brief is also 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: 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