KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement and a document that
post-dates the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08409.a1
DATE: 09/18/2017
DATE: September 18, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08409
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
4, 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 June 29, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant admitted to 17 of the 19 allegations in the SOR, and did not respond to the
remaining two allegations.  He requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did
not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge based his adverse
decision in the case in large measure on the fact that: “. . . the file lacks sufficient evidence that
Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, disputed, or otherwise resolved any of the
delinquent SOR accounts.  He did not describe financial counseling or present a budget. The record
lacks corroborating or substantiating documentation and detailed explanations of the causes for his
financial problems and other mitigating information.”  Decision at 3.  
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement and a document that post-dates
the Judge’s decision.  This evidence indicates that Applicant has been enrolled for some time in a
debt  repayment program and has resolved or settled over 90% of his outstanding debts.  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