KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge,
but it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record.  The Appeal
Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00249.a1
DATE: 04/02/2019
DATE: April 2, 2019
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00249
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 2, 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 hearing. 
On January 16, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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, but
it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record.  The Appeal Board
is prohibited from considering new evidence.  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: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale           
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2