KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains a document and assertions that are not included in
the record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.  Directive
¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00330.a1
DATE: 03/15/2019
DATE: March 15, 2019
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00330
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
February 20, 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 November 27, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Caroline E. Heintzelman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling over $23,000.  In
responding to the SOR, he claimed several debts were resolved, should have been resolved, or were
not his responsibility.  He failed to provide supporting documentation for some of his assertions. 
The Judge found for Applicant on two student loans totaling about $11,000 and against him on the
other debts. 
2
Applicant’s appeal brief contains a document and assertions that are not included in the
record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.1  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  His brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but it does request
a delay in the processing of his appeal so that he is able to present matters about a pending
bankruptcy.  The Board, however, does not have authority to grant such a request.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 10-00983 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 17, 2011).  
  
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
1 In his brief, for example, Applicant challenges one of the Judge’s finding (that he never met with the
Command Financial Specialist).  His explanation on appeal is different than the one he gave the OPM investigator
(Government Exhibit 3) and is thus new evidence which the Board cannot consider.   
3