KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge
denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03190.a1
DATE: 10/19/2018
DATE: October 19, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03190
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 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)  of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On August 13, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it
contains a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his financial problems and information that
he did not previously submit to the Judge for consideration.  The Appeal Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
  
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
2