KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. The
Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08474.a1
DATE: 08/01/2017
DATE: August 1, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08474
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
9, 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 hearing.  On May 22, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
On appeal Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Rather,
he argues that he was unable to address his financial problems because he was unemployed and
attending school online at the same time.  His brief presents new evidence in the form of multiple
documents that were not part of the hearing record and a statement that he has recently obtained
employment.  He requests “a delay in the final decision regarding [his] security clearance
application” so that he can “arrange a payment plan, or demonstrate [his] willing[ness] to fulfill all
[his] debts.” 
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. 15-03249 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2017).  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’s favorable finding under Guideline E is not at issue on appeal.