KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief makes no assertions of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06436.a1
DATE: 10/19/2016
DATE: October 19, 2016
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06436
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 26, 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 J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 12, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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.  It
merely states that he is appealing the Judge’s decision and provides a telephone number for
obtaining further information.  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.  Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision of the
Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan    
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board