KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not raise an issue on harmful error by the Judge.  We do not review
cases de novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 15-01734.a1
DATE: 01/19/2017
DATE: January 19, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01734
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
November 23, 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 November 3, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 harmful error.  Rather, it includes new
evidence, an IRS Form 2828, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative.  We cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Moreover, we do not review cases de novo. 
Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged that the Judge committed
harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-07018 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2016).  Because
Applicant has made no such 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
Member, Appeal Board
2