KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant does say it is wrong for the Judge to have looked at her past credit. In a
Guideline F case it is necessary and appropriate for the Judge to review an applicant’s financial
history. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-02367.a1
DATE: 07/17/2017
DATE: July 17, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-02367
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
September 30, 2016, 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 decision on the written record.  On April 24, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Applicant requested that her case be decided on the written record and then filed only a
narrative statement in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge
based his adverse decision in the case in large measure on the lack of corroborating documentation
to support Applicant’s statements.  Decision at 3.  Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of
harmful error on the part of the Judge.2  Rather, it contains a detailed submission that includes a
narrative statement by the Applicant explaining her current financial situation as well as
documentary exhibits corroborating the extent to which her debts have been paid off or paid down. 
Most of these documents post-date the submission of her case for decision.
The Board cannot consider 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
1The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E.  That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.
2Applicant does say it was wrong for the Judge to have looked at her past credit.  In a Guideline F case it is
necessary and appropriate for the Judge to review an applicant’s financial history.