KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant further argues that the document attached to his appeal brief is not new
evidence.  As best we discern, he is arguing that, since the document was in existence before the
Judge rendered his decision and because it would likely affect the outcome of the decision, it
was not new evidence.  This argument lacks merit.  New evidence consists of matters that were
not previously presented to the Judge for consideration.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03847.a1
DATE: 10/19/2018
DATE: October 19, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03847
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 3,  2018, 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 decision
on the written record.  On August 1, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge John
Bayard Glendon 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.  Indeed,
Applicant states, “it was not that the Administrative Judge was wrong with his/her decision in this
case, but that I failed to submit evidence to prove that I have been trying to extinguish this debt of
six years.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  However, he also contends the decision is wrong because it states he
made no attempt to pay off his debt.  In support of this contention, he attached a document to his
appeal brief that is not included in the record.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant further argues that the document attached to his appeal brief is not new evidence. 
As best we discern, he is arguing that, since the document was in existence before the Judge
rendered his decision and because it would likely affect the outcome of the decision, it was not new
evidence.  This argument lacks merit.  New evidence consists of matters that were not previously
presented to the Judge for consideration.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03247 at 1 (App. Bd. Sep. 20,
2018).  In this regard, we note that the document in question post-dates Applicant’s response to the
SOR and that he did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material
(FORM), which highlighted that he failed to provide documentation showing the status of his
delinquent debts.   
  
Applicant states that he did not know how to submit evidence after he had submitted his
answer to the SOR.  Applicant received a letter from DOHA advising him of his right to respond in
writing to the FORM.  This letter provided the address and the name of the DOHA official to whom
Applicant was to send his response.  If Applicant did not know how to respond to the FORM, it was
not due to inadequate guidance by DOHA.  
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 sustainable.
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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