CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01556.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01556.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01556.a1

Feb 7, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unmitigated foreign relationships. The applicant's wife and parents reside in Syria, which the appeal board determined created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.

The board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The applicant's arguments did not sufficiently address or mitigate the security concerns raised by his close family ties to a foreign country.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the unmitigated risk of foreign exploitation stemming from these relationships, which the applicant could not overcome during the review process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 10, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 5, 2019
Decision dateFeb 7, 2020

Cite For

Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation Under Guideline B
Insufficient Challenge to the Judge's Weighing of Evidence
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on foreign influence due to the applicant's family residing in Syria. The applicant argued that his family was not affiliated with the Syrian government and that he was not at risk of foreign coercion. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant acknowledges that his wife and parents do live in Syria, but notes they are not affiliated with the Syrian Government. He also argues that his allegiance is to the United States and that he is not at risk of foreign coercion. His arguments amount to a challenge to the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence and are insufficient to show the Judge reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01556.a1 DATE: 02/07/2020

DATE: February 7, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01556 ) ) 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 June 10, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 5, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleges that Applicant has relatives, including his wife and parents, who are citizens and residents of Syria. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s foreign relationships created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation that was not mitigated. In his appeal brief, Applicant acknowledges that his wife and parents do live in Syria, but notes they are not affiliated with the Syrian Government. He also argues that his allegiance is to the United States and that he is not at risk of foreign coercion. His arguments amount to a challenge to the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence and are insufficient to show the Judge reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board