KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00560.a1
DATE: 05/23/2018
DATE: May 23, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.17-00560
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 May
11, 2017, 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 hearing.  On March 6, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Jennifer Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains a narrative statement about the status of her debts and her efforts to resolve them. 
In the appeal brief, she also admitted that she falsified her security clearance application and stated
that she was extremely remorseful for doing so and it will not happen again. 
The Board does not review cases 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 such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying
Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan         
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale            
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board