KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to show that the adverse decision was influenced by a typographical
error in his application.  Neither is there evidence that Applicant’s self-described lack of
preparation resulted from the conduct of Government officials.  Applicant’s brief asserts no
harmful error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-04044.a1
DATE: 11/30/2015
DATE: November 30, 2015
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04044
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
February 4, 2015, 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 hearing.
On September 24, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge.  Indeed, he states that, given
the record that was before him, the Judge had no choice but to issue an adverse decision.  Applicant
2
avers that a misstatement in his security clearance application (SCA) as to the amount of a judgment
against him may have triggered the investigation in the case before us.  Applicant had listed the
amount of the judgment as $1,850,000 rather than the $18,500 that he meant to write.  He also states
that he was ill-prepared for the hearing.  On the first point, there is no reason to believe that the
Judge’s adverse decision was influenced in any way by Applicant’s typographical error in his SCA.
On the second point, Applicant cites to no evidence that his level of preparation was a function of
conduct by Government officials.  Nor is there any proffer as to what he could have submitted had
he been better prepared.  He also does not draw our attention to anything in the record in support of
this contention other than his typographical error.
We do not exercise de novo review.  Our authority to review a case is limited to cases in
which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.
Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge is
AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board