KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant does not raises any issue regarding the adverse conclusions under Guideline
E. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-12051.a1
DATE: 04/13/2016
DATE: April 13, 2016
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-12051
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
June 30, 2015, 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 hearing.  On February 2, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals  (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  He
does state that he submitted a document for consideration by the Judge before the close of the
record.  He then asserts that the Judge never received it.  Indeed, the Judge’s decision indicates that
no documents were offered by Applicant at any time while the record was open.  Ordinarily, in such
an event, the Board would consider Applicant’s assertions on appeal, even though they constitute
new evidence, as they raise an issue of procedural due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06467
at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 24, 2016).  Depending on circumstances, the Board might then grant appropriate
relief.  However, in this case, Applicant’s assertions concern evidence that relates only to the
Government’s case under Guideline F.1  This case also included an allegation under Guideline E,
and the Judge made a formal finding against Applicant under that guideline.  On appeal, Applicant
raises no issues under Guideline E.  There is no presumption of error below.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 04-08312 at 2 (July 14, 2005).  As the Judge’s adverse decision is fully supported by her formal
finding under Guideline E, any procedural errors involving matters relating to Guideline F are
harmless.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is
AFFIRMED. 
  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett          
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
1Applicant’s appeal brief references another document that relates only to Guideline F, which he does not claim
was submitted for consideration.  He also makes a factual representation concerning a Guideline F allegation.  These
matters would not be considered by the Board in any event, as they constitute new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
2
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3