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: 18-01837.a1
DATE: 05/09/2019
DATE: May 9, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01837
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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
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 March 15, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy
F. Foreman 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. 
Instead, he disputes a statement that is contained in the summary of his personal subject interview
(PSI).  He contends the investigator erred in reporting that he paid certain credit card debts when he
supposedly told the investigator those debts were charged off.  In this regard, we note that Applicant
admitted all of the allegations in his SOR response.  Furthermore, he was provided a copy of
Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), was given the opportunity to object to
matters in the FORM, including the PSI summary, and was permitted to submit additional matters
for the Judge’s consideration.  He  did not submit a response to the FORM.  We find no error in the
Judge’s findings based upon the PSI summary.
Applicant also requests that we review his current credit report.  The Appeal Board, however,
is not permitted to receive new evidence (Directive ¶ E3.1.29) and 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