KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant makes various assertions about his debts and the filing of his tax returns. 
However, he raises no assertion that the Judge committed any error in her unfavorable findings
and conclusions pertaining to the falsification allegations under Guideline E.  Because the
unfavorable falsification findings and conclusions are sufficient independently to support the
Judge’s overall adverse decision, we need not address Applicant’s assignments of error
regarding the Guideline F allegations. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-03393.a1
DATE: 08/06/2018
DATE: August 6, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No.16-03393
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
January 30, 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 decision on the written record.  On March 29, 2018, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, his Federal and state income tax
returns for 2005 through 2011, 2013, and 2014; that he had 11 delinquent debts totaling about
$77,300; and that he falsified his 2015 security clearance application by failing to disclose his tax
filing delinquencies and by failing to disclose that he had Federal tax liens and other Federal tax
delinquencies.  The Judge found against him on all of the SOR allegations.
In his appeal brief, Applicant makes various assertions about his debts and the filing of his
tax returns.  However, he raises no assertion that the Judge committed any error in her unfavorable
findings and conclusions pertaining to the falsification allegations under Guideline E.  Because the
unfavorable falsification findings and conclusions are sufficient independently to support the Judge’s
overall adverse decision, we need not address Applicant’s assignments of error regarding the
Guideline F allegations.    
In his appeal brief, Applicant also requests the opportunity to submit an additional brief so
that he could submit evidence supporting his claims and indicates that he would like the option to
retain counsel to produce a more detailed appeal brief, if his finances allow it.  We do not have the
authority to grant Applicant’s requests.  The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Consequently, we do not have authority to grant Applicant a continuance to
develop additional favorable evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12,
2014).  Additionally, the Directive authorizes only one brief for each party.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 12-09389 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015).
  
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.  The
adverse decision is sustainable on the unchallenged findings and conclusions under Guideline E.
2
Order
The Decision is Affirmed.
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale              
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3