KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-13724.a1
DATE: 02/14/2014
DATE: February 14, 2014
In Re:
-----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-13724
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 May
8, 2013, 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 requested a decision
2
on the written record.  On November 15, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant disputes the Judge’s assertion that he did not submit documentation regarding five
of the largest delinquent debts cited in the SOR.  Applicant is correct that the record contains a
document on one of these five debts.  However, there is nothing in the record evidence concerning
the other four.  Applicant’s brief refers to a letter that he mailed that purportedly contained
information about the other four debts.  There is no information provided about this letter, when it
was sent, or to whom it was sent, or what relationship it had, if any, to the materials Applicant
submitted in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material.  There is no presumption of
error below.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08312 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 2005).  Without more, the
Board cannot conclude that Applicant has demonstrated harmful error.  There is no evidence in the
record to support Applicant’s claims regarding a phone conversation between his wife and
(apparently) a DoD employee, wherein submission of documents was discussed.  Department
Counsel’s reply does not address the issue.  Additionally, Applicant’s brief contains a request to
submit new evidence concerning the disposition of certain of his debts.  We cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Order
The Decision 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