KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Rather, his submission contains a narrative statement discussing the evidence presented
below and improvements in his financial situation that have occurred subsequent to the hearings.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03052.a1
DATE: 06/16/2017
DATE: June 16, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03052
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 13, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 27, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the 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, his submission contains a narrative statement discussing the evidence presented below and
improvements in his financial situation that have occurred subsequent to the hearing.  As part of his
submission, he expresses a willingness to provide “a budget, character references and any pertinent
information that is required.”
The Board cannot consider any 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: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board