KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error.  It consists, in large part, of a
compilation of matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s
decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Our scope of review is limited to cases
in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05094.a1
DATE: 11/22/2016
DATE: November 22, 2016
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05094
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
December 9, 2014, 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 September 19, 2016 after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s brief contains no assertion of harmful error.1  It consists, in large part, of a
compilation of matters from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s
decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Our scope of review
is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed harmful error. 
Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
1Applicant did not provide a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM).  His brief states that documents
he submitted in September 2015, which was the date of his Answer to the SOR, did not contain sufficient information
about his financial status.  He states that this was due to a misunderstanding.  However, in November 2015, Applicant
received a copy of the FORM, accompanied by a DOHA cover letter.  These documents advised Applicant of his right
to make a documentary response to the FORM within 30 days of receipt.  The cover letter in particular stated that
Applicant could submit “any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider[.]” Cover Letter, dated November
16, 2015, at 1.  The FORM itself advised Applicant that his response could set forth “objections, rebuttal, extenuation,
mitigation, or explanation as appropriate.”  Applicant’s failure to make a response to the FORM cannot fairly be
attributed to inadequate notice of his right to do so.  
2
Member, Appeal Board
3