Loading case…

ISCR 19-00803: Guideline B security clearance hearing, granted (2024) · CASE

ISCR Case 19-00803granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00803

grantedNov 4, 2024· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant representing himself under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), primarily due to family ties in Kyrgyzstan. The administrative judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant had successfully mitigated the initial concerns.

Key mitigating factors included the applicant's demonstrated deep and long-standing loyalties to the United States, evidenced by his military service and strong community ties. Furthermore, the applicant maintained only minimal contact with his family abroad, which significantly reduced the potential for foreign influence.

The judge also considered positive character references that supported the applicant's trustworthiness and reliability. These combined factors, aligning with mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(c), led to the favorable decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant demonstrated deep and long-standing loyalties to the United States through military service and community ties.
Minimal contact with family abroad mitigated foreign influence concerns.
Positive character references supported the applicant's trustworthiness and reliability.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Nature of the Foreign ContactsThe applicant's minimal contact with family abroad mitigated concerns.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant's Ties to the U.S.The applicant's strong ties to the U.S. outweighed foreign influence concerns.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant's Character and ReputationPositive character references indicated the applicant's reliability.

Key rule quoted

“The favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2022
Answer filedOct 28, 2022
Hearing heldApr 13, 2023Applicant declined a supplemental hearing.
Decision dateNov 4, 2024

Cite for

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Weight of Character References in Clearance Evaluations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by his deep and longstanding ties to the United States, including military service and community involvement. The applicant's minimal contact with family in Kyrgyzstan and the nature of those communications further supported the decision. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were sufficient to grant security clearance.

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Military or Government Service · Community or Civic Involvement · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

______________ ______________ In the matter of: )

)

ISCR Case No. 19-00803

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 11/04/2024 Decision On September 29, 2022, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017 (AG). On October 28, 2022, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on February 17, 2023. A hearing was scheduled and held on April 13, 2023. I was assigned to the case on October 16, 2024. I contacted Applicant offering to reopen his case for a supplemental hearing since so much time had passed. He declined the offer to have a supplementary hearing, but instead provided additional documentary evidence, which I admitted without objection. After completely reviewing the record from the first hearing and considering all the hearing and post-hearing exhibits, I informed the parties that I believed this case was appropriate for a Summary Disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object. This case involves seven allegations of foreign influence concerns under Guideline B. I believe a Summary Disposition is appropriate because Applicant testified

________________________ and presented documentary evidence establishing there is no conflict of interest with his family members in Kyrgyzstan because of his deep and long-standing relationship and loyalties to the United States, as evidenced by his service in the Army National Guard, his community ties through his job and his children's schooling, and his financial ties to the United States. Additionally, his family contact is minimal, the greatest part of which is to communicate with his aged parents about their health status. He cut off contact with one former colleague in Kyrgyzstan in 2018 and the second former colleague now resides in the U.S. as a green card holder. His current supervisor and a colleague testified that Applicant is "forthright and forthcoming" and that he is trustworthy and reliable in performing his duties as a security clearance background investigator. The concerns over Applicant’s foreign influence no longer create doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. He established his deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, such that he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. In reaching these conclusions, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. Clearance is granted. Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge