KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01802.a1
DATE: 04/15/2019
DATE: April 15, 2019
In Re:
-----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-01802
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 July
3, 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 March 5, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Braden
M. Murphy 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 document post-dating the Judge’s decision and assertions that are not in the record.1 
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
1 Applicant states that he does not believe the information in his appeal brief constitutes new evidence. 
Information not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration is “new evidence” that the Appeal Board cannot
consider.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-00287 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2019).  
2