KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00804.a1
DATE: 04/01/2016
DATE: April 1, 2016
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00804
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 July
25, 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 December 31, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal submission contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, it contains documents which, on their face, postdate the Judge’s decision.  The Appeal Board
cannot consider new evidence on Appeal.  See Directive  ¶ E3.1.29.
The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo.  The 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 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