KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01969.a1
DATE: 04/06/2016
DATE: April 6, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01969
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
November 3, 2014, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On January 28,
2016, after the close of 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 makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  He
asserts that in his judgment “[there] were a few issues that raised some questions,” but he does not
reference any actions on the part of the Judge.  The only “issue” mentioned specifically by Applicant
was an irregularity with regard to “the last four digits attached” to his paperwork.  He states that
these numbers were incorrect without specifically identifying the nature and location of the error,
or asserting any connection between any error and the actions of the Judge.  Applicant also
references the Judge’s statement that he had not provided any proof of payment of his debts.1 
Applicant states that he had given all of his information, including character references, to the case
investigator who Applicant states left his position and apparently took Applicant’s information with
him.  Applicant’s only other assertion is that he is requesting an appeal because having his clearance
was his “way of providing for my family.”
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.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  The Board does not
review cases de novo.  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 E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
1The Judge noted that Applicant did not submit a written response to the Government’s File of Relevant
Material.
2
Member, Appeal Board
3