KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority
to grant Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03249.a1
DATE: 07/06/2017
DATE: July 6, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03249
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  18, 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 24, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
In this case, the hearing was held on August 17, 2016 and the record was held open for
Applicant to provide additional evidence.  Between August 31, 2016 and October 3, 2016 Applicant
provided two documents in a series of e-mails which were accepted without objection, and the
record was closed on October 17, 2016.  On appeal Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error
on the part of the Judge.  Rather, he presents new evidence indicating that two garnishments have
now been  removed, one in January 2017 and the other in March 2017.  He also requests a four week
extension  so he can present evidence showing that his debt resolution process with the government
has been completed.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal and has no authority to grant
Applicant an extension for the purpose of obtaining more evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR
Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014).  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