KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 16-03678.a1
DATE: 01/30/2018
DATE:  January 30, 2018
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03678
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
December 23, 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 October 13, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant includes in his brief a substantial amount of information from outside the record,
which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant states that he did not see Department Counsel’s notice in the File of Relevant
Material that the interview summary was lacking authentication and, in any event, he states that he
was not qualified to authenticate it.  It is not clear whether Applicant is arguing that the Judge should
have considered the interview or should not have considered it.  In this case, the Judge stated that
he did not consider this document precisely because he was not satisfied that Applicant understood
the meaning of authentication.  Decision at 2.  The Judge’s conclusion in this case not to consider
the document is sustainable.  
Applicant argues that he has satisfied the mitigating conditions.  However, except as noted
above, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). 
Beyond this, Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error.  Our authority to review a case is
limited to those in which the Appellant has raised an issue of harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-08349 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017). 
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed:   Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed:  James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board