KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has made no allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-08831.a1
DATE: 04/01/2016
DATE: April 1, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-08831
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
November 24, 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 January 28, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. 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, his submission contains new evidence in the form of releases of tax liens that are dated
subsequent to the close of the record in the case.1
The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Additionally, 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 Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1Applicant asks that we distinguish his documents by calling them “newly acquired”
evidence.  If the evidence was not before the Judge, it is new evidence.