KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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.  Such an error has not been
alleged in this case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-00186.a1
DATE: 07/19/2016
DATE: July 19, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00186
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
11, 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 May 9,  2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Judge.  In the
decision, the Judge noted he sent Applicant an email (copying Department Counsel) that provided
him the opportunity to submit additional information on specific debts.  The Judge received no
response.  Decision at 2.  Applicant claims the Judge’s email went into his spam folder, and he did
not see the email before receipt of the decision.  He is now requesting an opportunity to provide the
information the Judge requested.  A review of the record reflects Applicant was provided with the
procedural rights set forth in the Directive, including an opportunity to respond to Department
Counsel’s File of Relevant Material.  
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.  Such an error has not been alleged in this case. 
The Board does not review cases de novo.  The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security
clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan    
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Dissenting Opinion of Administrative Judge James E. Moody
The Judge cited Applicant’s failure to respond to his request for additional information as
one of the explicit reasons that he denied Applicant a clearance.  “Despite having been provided
with an opportunity to do so, Applicant did not provide documentation that his remaining six debts
were being resolved or were under control.”  Decision at 6.  However, Applicant never saw the
request.  The Judge sent the request for information to Applicant’s personal email account, where
it was routed to the spam folder.  Applicant states that his previous communications from DOHA
had been through the postal service or his official email account.  It isn’t surprising to me, therefore,
that he did not see the Judge’s message.  Under the facts of this case, I would remand the file to the
Judge to provide Applicant with an opportunity to respond to his request for information.
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board