KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains 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: 18-00287.a1
DATE: 04/03/2019
DATE: April 3, 2019
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00287
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
17, 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 January 2, 2019, after considering the record, 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. 
Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not in the record.1  The Appeal Board is
prohibited from considering new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  In the decision , the Judge noted
that certain documentation was missing from Applicant’s responses to the SOR and File of Relevant
Material.   On appeal, Applicant essentially contends such information was not requested from him. 
However, once the SOR allegations were admitted or proven, the burden was on Applicant to
present evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns arising from those
allegations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers,
they are expected to take timely and reasonable steps to exercise and protect their rights under the
Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-02371 at 3 (App. Bd.  Jun. 30, 2014).  
  
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 Applicant contends that the information provided in his appeal brief “is not new to the case, it has just since
been updated.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  Information not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration constitutes new
evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06491 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016).  
2