KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not demonstrated error below and is not entitled to a hearing just so he
can have another opportunity to present his case. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-08300.a1
DATE: 09/13/2018
DATE: September 13, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-08300
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
November 14,  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 July 12, 2018, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  The Judge found against Applicant on a majority of the Guideline F allegations
and in favor of him on the Guideline E allegations.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it
indicates Applicant has made arrangements to pay debts and has reduced his indebtedness.  In the
appeal brief, he also requests a hearing.  Upon being assigned to this case, the Judge confirmed that
Applicant wanted a decision on the written record and reopened the record to provide Applicant the
opportunity to submit additional matters.  In response, Applicant submitted two items that were
entered into evidence without objection.  Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a
party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a
second chance at presenting his or her case before an administrative judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-02730 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2016).  In this case, Applicant has not demonstrated error below
and is not entitled to a hearing just so he can have another opportunity to present his case.
  
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
3