KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03098.a1
DATE: 07/26/2017
DATE: July 26, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03098
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 decision
on the written record.  On May 26, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that his 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 on
the record that was before him which contained credit reports and other financial information dating
from 2015.  Applicant’s appeal brief contains no specific assertion of harmful error on the part of
the Judge.  Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining his current
financial situation.  As part of his submission he includes documents that post-date the submission
of his case for decision, including Federal and State tax returns for 2016 and a Chapter 13 Trustee
Interim Statement from 2017.  His presentation indicates that his Federal and State taxes are now
current, and his bankruptcy plan is being paid on time with no missing payments and is now over
50% complete.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s 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 Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. 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