KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it does contain a document that is not in the record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited
from considering new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  In this case, the Judge found that
Applicant presented no documentary proof of participating in a repayment plan.  As the Appeal
Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present
documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01094.a1
DATE: 04/09/2019
DATE: April 9, 2019
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-01094
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
8, 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 February 28, 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 does contain a document that is not in the record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited from
considering new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  In this case, the Judge found that Applicant
presented no documentary proof of participating in a repayment plan.  As the Appeal Board has
previously stated, it is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that
shows their efforts to resolve financial problems.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jul. 30, 2008).   
  
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