KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Notwithstanding Applicant’s characterization to the contrary, the Board cannot
consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05330.a1
DATE: 05/24/2016
DATE: May 24, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05330
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
January 29, 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 decision on the written record.  On April 11, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Noreen A. Lynch 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, it contains a narrative statement by the Applicant that he “didn’t supply any supporting
evidence that [he] was in fact carrying out with [his] financial plans” because his debts and assets 
had not yet been divided during a divorce proceeding that was in process.  He goes on to state that
his debts and assets have now been divided and he has an attorney who will soon begin the process
of filing for bankruptcy.  Applicant characterizes his assertions on appeal as “not new evidence, only
supporting information that was just recently obtained.”  
Notwithstanding Applicant’s characterization to the contrary, the Board cannot consider
Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  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: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board