KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review a case de novo. 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.  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Adverse
decision AFFIRMED
CASENO: 12-10934.a1
DATE: 03/21/2016
DATE: March 21, 2016
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-10934
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 May
21, 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 decision
on the written record.  On January 28, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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, Applicant states that she made a mistake by not electing to have a hearing, and asks the
Board to remand her case for a hearing so that she can offer evidence about herself, particularly her
military service and awards.  As part of her submission on appeal, she includes copies of her DD214,
Legion of Merit narrative, and several character reference letters.  
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Additionally, the Board has no authority to remand a case for a hearing simply for the purpose of
taking in new evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-20403 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2003) citing
ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2001)(“Absent a showing of factual or legal error that
affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceedings below, a party does not have the right
to have a second chance at presenting its case before an Administrative Judge.”)
The Board does not review a case de novo. 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. 
Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the
decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed; Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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