KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant
an applicant an extension.  The Board does not review a case de novo. The 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. 
Adverse decision AFFIRMED.
CASENO: 15-01778.a1
DATE: 01/31/2017
DATE: January 31, 2017
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01778
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
September 15, 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 22, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 a copy of the Judge’s decision, and a statement from the Applicant requesting that
a 90 day “remand/hold” be placed on the decision to allow Applicant an opportunity to obtain the
removal of certain items from his credit report and provide documentary evidence of the changes.1
The Board cannot consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Additionally, it has no authority to grant an applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014).  The Board does not
review a case de novo. The 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 Y. Ra’anan
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1Applicant alleges that bankruptcy law protects him from owing certain debts he previously admitted.  The
record does not support his claim.
Signed: William S. Fields
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board