KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.  Applicant did not raise an issue of
harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-03799.a1
DATE: 08/30/2016
DATE: August 30, 2016
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03799
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 May
20, 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 hearing. 
On June 14, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 Applicant’s statements that he received a refund after refiling a tax return,
resolved some unspecified debts, and can now show he is not getting further into debt.  His
assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  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: Michael Ra’anan          
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board