KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: The record shows, that Applicant received guidance in the File of Relevant Material
(FORM) regarding his right to make a written response to the matters set forth therein.  DOHA
provided similar guidance in the cover letter that accompanied the FORM, and Applicant
received a copy of the Directive, which also explained these rights.  Moreover, the cover letter
and the Directive notified Applicant of his right to assistance of counsel or of some other
representative in preparing his response.  If Applicant did not understand his rights and
obligations in responding to the FORM, it was not due to any insufficiency in the guidance that
he received.  As it stands, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due
process afforded him by the Directive.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04123.a1
DATE: 11/19/2018
DATE: November 19, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04123
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 
December 28, 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
J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On September 10, 2018, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Applicant begins his brief by stating that the Judge did not do anything wrong.  He argues,
however, that he himself did not understand what kind of proof was required to demonstrate
mitigation of his debts.  The record shows, however, that Applicant received guidance in the File
of Relevant Material (FORM) regarding his right to make a written response to the matters set forth
therein.  DOHA provided similar guidance in the cover letter that accompanied the FORM, and
Applicant received a copy of the Directive, which also explained these rights.  Moreover, the cover
letter and the Directive notified Applicant of his right to assistance of counsel or of some other
representative in preparing his response.2  If Applicant did not understand his rights and obligations
in responding to the FORM, it was not due to any insufficiency in the guidance that he received. 
As it stands, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded him
by the Directive.    
Applicant requests that we give him instruction on what kind of proof would be sufficient
to mitigate the concerns raised in his SOR.  It is well-settled that it is reasonable for Judge to expect
applicants to present documentation about the resolution of their debts.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
17-00378 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov 2, 2018).  However, we have no authority to provide an applicant with
advice regarding the best way in which to present his or her case for mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 16-03387 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2018).  For us to do so would be inconsistent with our
obligation to remain impartial.  As stated above, Applicant has not alleged that the Judge committed
harmful error. We do not review cases de novo.   Our authority is limited to cases in which the
appealing party alleges harmful error.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08300 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13,
2018).  
1The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline J are not at issue in this appeal.  
2Applicant did in fact make a written response to the FORM, though the Judge concluded that he had not
provided documentary evidence in corroboration of his claims of debt resolution.  This conclusion is consistent with the
record that was before the Judge.  Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected
to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 17-02196 at 2-3
(App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2018).
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale                
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3