KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08349.a1
DATE: 12/4/2017
DATE: December 4, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08349
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 June
13, 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 Aug. 4, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan
J. Rivera 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).  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 by the Applicant that he has paid off all but one of the old debts prior to the
date of the decision and he is marking payments on that remaining debt.  Applicant does not
challenge the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline E allegation.
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