KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline G; Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-02617.a1
DATE: 03/26/2018
DATE: March 26, 2018
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-02617
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 15, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 7,
2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline G and Guideline
F have not been raised as an issue on appeal.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains a narrative statement in which Applicant stated he found the Judge’s decision
“overwhelmingly positive in my favor” and noted that he will be off probation this year for his 2010
felony conviction for driving under the influence with a child under 15 years of age.  Appeal Brief
at 1.  He also stated that loss of his security clearance will have a detrimental effect on him and his
family.  However, the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not
a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his security eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). 
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 made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, 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
Signed: James F. Duffy      
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2