DATE: January 9, 2007
---------
SSN: --------
Applicant for Security Clearance
PPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 7, 2005, DOHA 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 the case be decided on the written record. On June 16, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. (1) Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of error on the part of the Administrative Judge. It only contains new evidence, in the form of additional statements relating to the debt alleged in SOR paragraph 1.f. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The Appeal Board does not review a case de novo. The Board's authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Administrative Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error. Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan
Michael Y. Ra'anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1. The Administrative Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E, and with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, and 1.h. Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.