KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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. This decision is sustainable
because Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06575.a1
DATE: 10/19/2017
DATE: October 19, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06575
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
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 June
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 July 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
In his appeal brief, Applicant states:
. . . I am not in favor of the outcome because I have concluded that some old
evidence that supports my case wasn’t successfully submitted causing the outcome
of my case to result in denial.  I am also cognizant that my case was also in the hands
of different employees hence not getting individual attention on the mentioned case
therefore I am requesting an appeal.1
Applicant’s appeal brief does not contain a copy of the evidence that he claims was not
considered.  He has not identified the nature of that evidence, who submitted it, when it was
submitted, or to whom it was submitted.  Additionally, we note that Department Counsel’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant on September 15, 2016.  The forwarding letter
advised Applicant that the FORM consisted of relevant material that will be submitted to an
Administrative Judge so that a security clearance determination could be made in his case. 
Applicant received the FORM on September 26, 2016, and was given 30 days from its receipt to
submit any objections or additional information that he wished to be considered.  The FORM also
advised that, “[i]f you do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case
will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on this File of
Relevant Material.” [Emphasis added].  FORM at 3.  Applicant received adequate notice that, if he
wanted the Judge to consider matters beyond those contained in the FORM, he needed to submit
those matters.  Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  From our review of the record,
we conclude that Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case that he was denied due process. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02933 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 23, 2016).   
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.  This
decision is sustained because Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harm4ful error on the
part of the Judge.
1 Regarding the second quoted sentence, the Board construes Applicant’s argument as raising a complaint that
too many people are involved in his security clearance adjudication.  The Board’s authority is limited as set out in
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32-E3.1.35.  The second quoted sentence raises matters that are not within the Board’s authority. 
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan               
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board