KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03495.a1
DATE: 04/07/2017
 
DATE: April 7, 2017
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.15-03495
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 4, 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 that the case
be decided on the written record.  On February 10, 2017, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 Applicant’s Appeal Brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains information that he did not previously present to the Judge.  The Appeal Board
can neither receive nor consider this new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
The Board does not review cases 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 made an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying
Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan          
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2