KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  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.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 16-02152.a1
DATE: 01/29/2018
DATE: January 29, 2018
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-02152
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
October 11, 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 November 1, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Martin H. Mogul 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 filed a short
narrative response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), stating the he was
working with a bankruptcy attorney to help alleviate his past debts.   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 signed his final bankruptcy paperwork 
and that it is in the process of being filed.  He estimates that he should have a court date between
mid-January and the end of February in 2018.   He 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 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