KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: We have no authority to address the length of time involved in the processing of
Applicant’s case.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Our jurisdiction is limited to
cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.  Adverse decision
affirmed.  
CASE NO: 15-02919.a1
DATE: 04/18/2017
DATE: April 18, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02919
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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On January 26, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
\
In her brief, Applicant requests that the Judge’s final decision be “reconsidered” because the
processing of her case took too long.  She states that she was advised that a decision would be made
by the Judge sooner that it actually was1 and she feels that because of the delay, “[her] case and
appearance at the hearing was . . . forgotten and not given a fair ruling.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  Other
than the aforesaid assertion, Applicant does not point to any specific error in the Judge’s decision
or the hearing process.  Included with her brief is new evidence in the form of two character
references which post-date the Judge’s decision.
 
The Board has no jurisdiction to rule on Applicant’s contention that the processing of her
case took too long.  See ISCR Case No.11-12730 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2013).  Additionally, it
cannot receive and consider any new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  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
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1It is unclear from the brief who advised Applicant as to when she could expect to receive a decision, and
the copy of the Directive and pre-hearing guidance that was provided to the Applicant do not specify any time limits
in that regard.