KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-09539.a1
DATE: 05/08/2017
DATE: May 8, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-09539
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 2, 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 decision
on the written record.  On February 16, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then did not respond
to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge based his adverse decision in
the case in large measure on the lack of independent evidence about Applicant’s current financial
stability and the extent to which individual debts had been resolved or reduced.  Applicant’s appeal
brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it contains a detailed
narrative statement by the Applicant explaining her current financial situation as well as her previous
and ongoing efforts to resolve individual SOR debts.  As part of her submission she includes
documents relating to her debts that post-date the submission of her case for decision.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Additionally,
the Board does not review a case 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.  Applicant has
not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the
Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, 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