ISCR Case No. 14-01969.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Board does not review cases de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-01969.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01969

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 November 3, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On January 28, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. He asserts that in his judgment “[there] were a few issues that raised some questions,” but he does not reference any actions on the part of the Judge. The only “issue” mentioned specifically by Applicant was an irregularity with regard to “the last four digits attached” to his paperwork. He states that these numbers were incorrect without specifically identifying the nature and location of the error, or asserting any connection between any error and the actions of the Judge. Applicant also references the Judge’s statement that he had not provided any proof of payment of his debts.1 Applicant states that he had given all of his information, including character references, to the case investigator who Applicant states left his position and apparently took Applicant’s information with him. Applicant’s only other assertion is that he is requesting an appeal because having his clearance was his “way of providing for my family.” 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. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. The Board does not review cases de novo. Therefore, 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

1 The Judge noted that Applicant did not submit a written response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material.