KEYWORD: Guideline: F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by
the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an
error. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00556.a1
DATE: 09/18/2017
DATE: September 18, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00556
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
23, 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 30, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant acknowledges at the outset that he failed in “owning up” to his financial
responsibilities.  He forthrightly states that “the Judge was correct with [her] decision[.]” Appeal
Brief at 1.  He goes on to describe circumstances that affected his dilatory tax return filings and past-
due tax payments.  He cites to record evidence that his returns have by now been filed and that he
has attempted to secure payments plans with the IRS.1  In addition to these things, Applicant’s brief
includes a substantial amount of new evidence, which the Directive does not permit us to consider.2
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant’s brief, viewed in its totality, does not make an assertion of harmful error by the
Judge.  Our jurisdiction is limited to those cases in which the appealing party alleges such an error. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  Accordingly, the Judge’s decision 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: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board 
1Applicant does not argue that the Judge failed to consider this evidence or that she mis-weighed it.  However,
to the extent that such an argument is implicit in his reference to it, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).
2Even so, we conclude that, had this information been included in the record evidence, it would not have led
to a different result.