KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant makes no assertion that the Judge erred in his findings, analysis, or
conclusions. He stated that his children’s illnesses, which the Judge discussed in the decision,
have improved and that he its taking self-help credit tutorial classes. These assertions are not
sufficient to establish that the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06390.a1
DATE: 06/14/2017
DATE: June 14, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.15-06390
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
April 12, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline B
(Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6
(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 11, 2017, after the
hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard, denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 In the appeal brief, Applicant stated that he surrendered his foreign passport when he
became a U.S. citizen and that he settled a charged-off bank debt.  The Guideline E allegation
asserted that Applicant failed to disclose in a security clearance application that he previously had
a foreign passport.  Prior to the hearing, the Government withdrew the Foreign Influence and
Personal Conduct allegations.  The  Judge also found in favor of Applicant on that charged-off bank
debt.  Because the allegation involving the foreign passport was withdrawn and the charged-off bank
debt was resolved in his favor, we need not address Applicant’s assertions about those matters on
appeal.   
In the appeal brief, Applicant also indicated that he was presenting “new documentation that
was not available during my hearing.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  Since this document was not previously
presented to the Judge for consideration,  it constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot
consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant makes no assertion that the Judge erred in his findings, analysis, or conclusions.
He stated that his children’s illnesses, which the Judge discussed in the decision, have improved and
that he is taking self-help credit tutorial classes.  These assertions are not sufficient to establish that
the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. 
In short, Applicant has made no assertion that the Judge committed harmful error. 
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 such an allegation, 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