KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01199.a1
DATE: 02/12/2019
DATE: February 12, 2019
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01199
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 May
3, 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 December 4,  2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess 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 assertions about the reasons for his financial problems and his actions to resolve
them.  
  
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: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale              
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2