KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge had no authority to serve as an investigator in the case and contact the bank
or the collection attorneys. To do so would be inconsistent with her role as an independent fact
finder. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01787.a1
DATE: 11/22/2017
DATE: November 22, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01787
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
September 16, 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 decision on the written record.  On September 7, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 did not respond
to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge based her adverse decision as
to the Guideline F allegations in large measure on the lack of documentation to substantiate his
assertion that he has been working to resolve his delinquent debts.  Decision at 5-6.  On appeal,
Applicant asserts that he had previously “supplied Bank account numbers and the phone numbers
of the Collection lawyers to whom [he had] been paying for the last 5 years.”  The Judge considered
that information in reaching her decision.  Id. at 1, 3, 5 and 7.  The Judge had no authority to serve
as an investigator in the case and contact the bank or the collection attorneys.  To do so would be
inconsistent with her role as an independent fact finder.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00420 at 2
(App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2017).
Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegations. 
He asks for more time “to produce the financial statements when they arrive” for the Board’s review.
The Board cannot consider 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-
08474 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 1, 2017).   The Board does not review a case de novo and the adverse
impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant or material
consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06908 at 3
(App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2017).   Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan         
Michael 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