WPCM  J$4Q^"a{ ;V- y8˳Ϭ2;?]M&ǢOo{%3"WƤ%\+8x&Wz BPSڵ biLj_qG1X%Wd"mW׌9I}͜> Œ>WIG5o w58%‰]f>z/{&S ƷTq SZkZsݷ)s_w0yS-1!@aĵ KT>9MeMb K2D1~b7t"c$[f{w+#ǦX Pwddөb[.g*toiS7ѠtQ1lͪqG[خF]MkruOƶUx紀v=* tp!Pm.,R6˜5s &2Y +W3L9 .".M`#@UN %W 0:] ^ w 4   m E Z 0~? 0D N -                                                                              B0 HP LaserJet P3010 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,m?J5 f-IxntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   # ($USUS.,    1    _XXApplicantallegesthatbankruptcylawprotectshimfromowingcertaindebtshepreviouslyadmitted.The  recorddoesnotsupporthisclaim. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:TheBoardcannotconsideranynewevidenceonappealandhasnoauthoritytogrant  anapplicantanextension.TheBoarddoesnotreviewacasedenovo.TheBoardsauthorityto t reviewacaseislimitedtocasesinwhichtheappealingpartyhasallegedtheJudgecommitted ` harmfulerror.ApplicanthasnotmadeanallegationofharmfulerroronthepartoftheJudge. L  AdversedecisionAFFIRMED. 8  _CASENO_:1501778.a1  ` DATE:01/31/2017  8     `     h      p DATE:January31,2017 4 .؉7r(#(#.A_ ) xdEgA 4 InRe: /    `      ApplicantforSecurityClearance { A_ ) xdER!gA S!   b!! ) 4! )  " )  # ) $ ) % ) & ) l' ) X (  D!) pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501778 ,  - .؉7r. \XXp :#-    APPEALBOARDSUMMARYDISPOSITION &:"1 APPEARANCES )$4  &3%XX FORGOVERNMENT  +&6 JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel ^,'7  6-(8  FORAPPLICANT    Pro_se #XX%&3##_      TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On 6 September15,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor " r thatdecision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartment  ^ ofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.  J OnNovember22,2016,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)  6 AdministrativeJudgePaulJ.MasondeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicant  "  appealedpursuanttotheDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.      ApplicantsappealbriefcontainsnoassertionofharmfulerroronthepartoftheJudge.   Rather,itcontainsacopyoftheJudgesdecision,andastatementfromtheApplicantrequestingthat n  a90day remand/holdbeplacedonthedecisiontoallowApplicantanopportunitytoobtainthe Z  removalofcertainitemsfromhiscreditreportandprovidedocumentaryevidenceofthechanges. #  1       F   TheBoardcannotconsideranynewevidenceonappeal.SeeDirectiveE3.1.29. n Additionally,ithasnoauthoritytograntanapplicantanextensionforthepurposeofobtainingmore  Z evidence.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1400151at3(App.Bd.Sep.12,2014).TheBoarddoesnot F reviewacasedenovo.TheBoardsauthoritytoreviewacaseislimitedtocasesinwhichthe 2 appealingpartyhasallegedtheJudgecommittedharmfulerror.Applicanthasnotmadean  allegationofharmfulerroronthepartoftheJudge.Therefore,thedecisionoftheJudgeis   AFFIRMED.     `     h   Signed:MichaelY._Raanan_ B    `     h   MichaelY._Raanan_ . ~    `     h   AdministrativeJudge !j    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard "V     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody &!%    `     h   JamesE.Moody '"&    `     h   AdministrativeJudge z(#'    `     h   Member,AppealBoard f)$(  R*%) Ї   `     h   Signed:WilliamS._Fields_     `     h   WilliamS.Fields t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___