KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  Applicant’s Appeal Brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement which includes
clarifications or elaborations on the record evidence.  The Board cannot consider any new
evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO:  15-08013.a1
DATE:  04/12/2017
DATE:  April 12, 2017
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08013
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 May
22, 2016, 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 February 10, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
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 contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement which includes clarifications
or elaborations on the record evidence, as well as affirmative assertions that: Applicant now has a
better job; the Federal and state taxes he owed for tax year 2015 now have a zero balance; he now
has a payment plan in place for his 2014-2015 property taxes; he is still paying child support for his
eldest son; and as of the date of his Appeal Brief he has paid-off 68% of the SOR debt.1
The Board cannot 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:  Williams S. Fields     
William S. Fields
1Applicant also states in his Appeal Brief that he has done everything he could to rectify his past financial
mistakes.  However, this general disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to
demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016).
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board