KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s statement lacks sufficient specificity for the Board to address the
assignment of error. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00598.a1
DATE: 03/08/2018
DATE: March 08, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00598
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
August 9, 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 December 1, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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).  In his appeal brief, Applicant states only
that “. . . denial of [his] security clearance is wrong due to an error in the investigation of some of
[his] debts.”  Applicant’s statement lacks sufficient specificity for the Board to address the
assignment of error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan.8, 2016).  Additionally,
the Board has no authority to rule on the manner in which officials conduct clearance investigations. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04186 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2015).
The Board does not review a case de novo.  Its authority to review a case is limited to cases
in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-04736 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2018).  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
Member, 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
2