KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline H
DIGEST: The adverse impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a
relevant consideration in evaluating his security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-04036.a1
DATE: 09/13/2018
DATE: September 13, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-04036
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
March 24,  2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline H (Drug
Involvement and Substance Misuse), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June
29, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 statements about, among other matters, him completing a 90-day
rehabilitation program in 2014, remaining sober ever since, and filing for bankruptcy in 2018.  He
also advises of the consequences of him losing his security clearance.  However, the adverse impact
that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a relevant consideration in evaluating
his security eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015).1
  
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
1 Applicant’s brief includes character statements that constitute new evidence, which the Appeal Board cannot
consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
2