CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03562 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03562denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03562

Aug 11, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties and property ownership in Iraq. The judge found that the applicant's siblings and close contacts in Iraq presented a security concern, though the parent-in-law did not. The appeal was subsequently denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's initial decision.

Specifically, the denial was based on several disqualifying conditions. The applicant has siblings and a parent-in-law who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Furthermore, the applicant co-owns a home with his siblings in Iraq and maintains close contact with friends and relatives who are also citizens and residents of Iraq.

While Guideline B, Section 5 (AG B 5) was considered as a potential mitigating condition, it was ultimately not applied. The presence of Guideline B, Section 7 (AG B 7) disqualifying conditions, particularly the close ties and property ownership in Iraq, led to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B 7raisedForeign Contacts and Activities

Mitigating

AG B 5rejectedContact with Foreign RelativesThe judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the parent-in-law but against him on other allegations.

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 22, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 21, 2022after close of the record
Decision dateAug 11, 2022

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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on foreign influence concerns. The applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision but argued for clearance based on coworkers' experiences. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not specifically assert any harmful error in the decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

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

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira Modzelewski

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 19-03562

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 11, 2022

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 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