A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-03562
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 11, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties in Iraq. The judge found against the applicant regarding siblings and close contacts in Iraq but in favor of the parent-in-law. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant has siblings and a parent-in-law who are citizens and residents of Iraq.
- The applicant co-owns a home with his siblings in Iraq.
- The applicant maintains close contact with friends and relatives who are citizens and residents of Iraq.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG B 7 Foreign contacts and activitiesraised
Mitigating
- AG B 5 Contact with foreign relativesrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-04-22
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-04-21 after close of the record
- Decision date
- 2022-08-11
Cite for
- Security Concerns Under Guideline B Due to Foreign Influence
- Impact of Family Ties on Security Clearance Decisions
- Standard for Granting Security Clearances Related to National Security
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on foreign influence concerns. The Applicant did not assert specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision but highlighted the clearance status of coworkers. The Board affirmed the decision, finding it sustainable on the record.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 19-03562
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 11, 2022
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 April 22, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 21, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant has siblings and a parent-in-law who are citizens and residents of Iraq, that he co-owns a home with his siblings in Iraq, and that he maintains close contact with friends and relatives who are citizens and residents of Iraq. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the allegation concerning the parent-in-law and against him on the other allegations.
In his appeal brief, Applicant does not specifically assert the Judge committed any error in the decision. Rather, Applicant’s brief highlights that he has coworkers from Middle Eastern countries who have been granted security clearances. This assertion is not sufficient to show unfair or discriminatory handling of his case. The Directive provides that each case must be judged on its own merits. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). Additionally, Applicant makes other arguments for why he should be granted a security clearance, but none of them are sufficient to show the Judge committed any harmful error in the decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with 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 national security.”
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board