KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is no point in remanding the case under Guideline F because the Judge’s adverse
conclusion under Guideline E is not challenged.
CASENO: 14-02251.a1
DATE: 06/24/2015
DATE: June 24, 2015
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02251
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 July
28, 2014, 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 decision on the written record.  On April 13, 2015, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether she was denied due process. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The SOR alleges that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts for such things as student
loans, medical expenses, etc.  Applicant claimed that some of the debts were not hers and that
several of them had been paid.  The Judge found that Applicant had not corroborated her assertions. 
He also found that there is no record evidence that Applicant had received financial counseling. 
Neither is there evidence of a budget that would reflect Applicant’s ability to resolve her debts. In
addition, the Judge found against Applicant regarding the sole allegation under Guideline E, that
Applicant had been fired from a job with another Government contractor in 2011.  This was due to
her violation of an ethics policy.  She made numerous personal long-distance phone calls on her
work phone line.  
Applicant contends that she was denied due process.  Specifically, she contends that she
submitted a reply to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record.  As
a consequence, she argues that the Judge based his decision upon inadequate information.  She
requests that we remand the case to the Judge in order to “allow me to resubmit updated information
relating to my financial situation.” 
Applicant’s appeal issue presents matters from outside the record.  Although we are not able
to consider new evidence on appeal, in the past we have done so concerning threshold issues such
as due process and jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01239 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 23, 2014). 
However, Applicant casts her brief solely in terms of her desire to update her financial information. 
Even if she were to do so, that would not on its face undermine the Judge’s decision under Guideline
E.  Applicant  admitted the allegation in her response to the SOR, and she has not challenged the
Judge’s adverse conclusion on appeal.  Under these circumstances, we conclude that Applicant’s
brief has not supplied a sufficient reason for us to remand the case to the Judge.  Applicant has
presented no other assertion of harmful error.  We do not exercise de novo review of appeal cases. 
Our authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue on harmful error. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14775 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2014).
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3