KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains information that she did not previously present to the Judge.  The Appeal
Board can neither receive nor consider this new evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-10211.a1
DATE: 05/01/2017
DATE: May 1, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.12-10211
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 11, 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 March 22, 2017, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 she 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: James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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