KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is
currently working with a debt consolidation agency, and that once he gets a contract with that
company he could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01834.a1
DATE: 09/14/2017
DATE: September 14, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01834
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 13, 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 4, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 submitted only
a one page letter in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  “He provided
no documentary evidence to corroborate or substantiate his efforts to address the debts alleged in
the SOR or basis to dispute their legitimacy.  He also provided no documentary evidence regarding
the current state of his finances or addressing the whole person factors in AG ¶ 2(a).”  Decision at
2.  
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains a detailed narrative statement by the Applicant explaining that he is currently
working with a debt consolidation agency and that once he gets a contract with that company he
could possibly submit it to the Appeal Board as evidence.
The Appeal Board cannot receive and consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  It does not review a case de novo. The 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 E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board