KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:    Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 16-02948.a1
DATE: 01/11/2018
DATE:  January 11, 2018
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-02948
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
November 1, 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 hearing. 
On October 3, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, she correctly notes that she cannot submit documentation in her appeal brief showing she
is making payments on some of her debts because it would constitute new evidence.  See, Directive
¶ E3.1.29.  She also contends that applicants should be judged on their character and work ethic and
not on their financial faults.  We note the Directive provides that “[t]he adjudicative process is an
examination of a sufficient period and a careful weighing of a number of variables of an individual
life to make an affirmative determination that the individual is an acceptable risk.”1  Guideline F sets
forth important conditions for a Judge to consider because “[f]ailure to live within one’s means,
satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”2 
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. 
Because Applicant has not raised such an allegation, the decision of the Judge 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
1 Directive, Encl 2, App. A ¶ 2(a).
2 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18.  
2
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3