CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-04330.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-04330.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-04330.a1

Nov 17, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a quality control manager for a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The primary concern stemmed from her strong ties to relatives in Sudan, her country of origin.

The judge determined that these connections created a risk of coercion, potentially compromising U.S. classified information. Despite the applicant's efforts to address these issues, her arguments were found insufficient to mitigate the identified security concerns.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the risk of foreign influence had been adequately resolved.

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 issuedNov 15, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2011
Decision dateNov 17, 2011

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
The Impact of Familial Ties on Security Clearance Decisions
The Standard for Granting Security Clearances in Relation 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 security concerns under Guideline B due to the Applicant's strong ties to her family in Sudan. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to apply mitigating conditions and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRita C. O’Brien — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly apply the mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusion regarding the Applicant's strong ties to her Sudanese relatives raised security concerns that were sustainable. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

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 Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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: Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s strong ties of affection to her Sudanese relatives raised security concerns was sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 10-04330.a1 DATE: 11/17/2011 DATE: November 17, 2011 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-04330

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 15, 2010, DOHA 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 August 26, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a quality control manager for a Defense contractor. She was born in Sudan and came to the U.S. in the early 2000s. She attended graduate school in this country and became a U.S. citizen in the mid-2000s. Her parents and siblings are citizens and residents of Sudan. Both her parents are retired; neither receives a government pension. Applicant’s parents would like to move permanently to the U.S., and Applicant plans to sponsor them. Applicant’s Sudanese siblings are employed in Sudan. All are married, and none have served in the Sudanese military. Applicant’s family lives in northern Sudan, an area not affected by recent turmoil. None are involved in politics. Applicant visits Sudan often. The Judge quoted Applicant as saying that she is “able to keep close ties with my siblings and my immediate family by calling them often, and visiting them during my annual vacations when finances permit.” Decision at 3. Sudan has been a state sponsor of terrorism. The government was implicated in the bombing, murder, and rape of displaced persons in Darfur. Although it has recently undergone positive change, its human rights record remains poor and terrorist groups operate from within its borders. In the Analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant is bound by strong ties of affection to her Sudanese relatives, posing the risk that the relatives might become a means through which parties could attempt to coerce Applicant into compromising U.S. classified information. The Judge went on to conclude that, “[g]iven these ties to her foreign family, I cannot confidently conclude she would resolve a conflict of interest in favor of the United States.” Decision at 7. Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that she has strong ties of affection to her family. She contends that her ties to them are not out of the ordinary. However, the Judge did not conclude that Applicant’s relationship with her family was unique. Rather, she found that Applicant’s ties to her Sudanese family were close, and this finding was supported by the record evidence. See, e.g., Applicant quotation cited by the Judge and noted above. These close ties, examined in the context of Sudan’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism, raise security concerns under Guideline B. The Judge’s ultimate conclusion, that Applicant had failed to mitigate these concerns, is sustainable. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board