KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to
the applicant to establish mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07047.a1
DATE: 08/01/2017
DATE: August 1, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07047
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 May
14, 2016, 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 31, 2017 after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 filed only a
narrative statement in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  His
response did not object to any items submitted by the government in the FORM.  The Judge based
his adverse decision in the case on the items in the FORM, noting that Applicant had presented “no
evidence that he made any payments to his SOR creditors.” Decision at 3.  On appeal, Applicant
argues that it was error for the Judge to base his adverse decision on “old credit information.”  In
support of his assertion, he offer new evidence in the form of multiple documents that were not part
of the record before the Judge.  Most of those documents post-date the submission of his case for
decision.  
Applicant’s presentation on appeal does not establish any harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Moreover, once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Applicant did not object to the information
in the FORM and did not avail himself of the opportunity to present more recent credit information.
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