KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02765.a1
DATE: 08/17/2015
DATE: August 17, 2015
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02765
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 1, 2014, 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
on the written record.  On June 12, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 is a narrative statement that summarizes the evidence Applicant  presented in response to
the Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), and gives details about his continuing
efforts to resolve his financial problems.
The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo, and it cannot consider new evidence on
appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The 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 is
AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett           
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
 Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board