CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-00327.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-00327.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-00327.a1

Mar 19, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from India, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from concerns that the applicant's frequent contacts with family abroad, combined with the geopolitical context of their locations, created a potential for coercion.

The judge determined that these factors raised sufficient security risks. The applicant's substantial assets in the U.S. were not deemed sufficient to mitigate the foreign influence concerns.

Ultimately, the adverse decision was affirmed on appeal, resulting in the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign 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 issuedAug 13, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 27, 2012
Decision dateMar 19, 2013

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Impact of Family Contacts on Security Clearance Decisions
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 concerns under Guideline B. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision regarding the Applicant's security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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: The Judge noted that, although Applicant had substantial assets in the U.S., there is an increased possibility that Applicant’s family could become a means through which Applicant could be coerced, considering his frequent contacts with his mother and other relatives, as well as the geopolitical context of the two countries involved. The record supports the Judge’s conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-00327.a1 DATE: 03/19/2013 DATE: March 19, 2012 In Re: ---------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-00327

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 August 13, 2012, 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 27, 2012, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was born and raised in India. He and his wife, who is also Indian, were married in the late 1990sand became U.S. citizens in the mid-2000s. Applicant had come to the U.S. as an employee of an Indian company, and he earned an advanced degree from a U.S. university. In the mid-1990s, Applicant’s parents moved from India to another country and became citizens there. His father has died. Applicant speaks with his mother about once a week. Applicant has numerous siblings, who live in India and in the other country. He speaks with one of them once or twice a year and visits him about once a year. He speaks with some of his other siblings once or twice a year. India and the other country enjoy friendly relations with the U.S., although terrorist activities have occurred within the two countries. Both have been identified as collectors of U.S. proprietary data. The Judge’s Analysis In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s foreign family members raised security concerns. She noted that he had substantial assets in the U.S., but she concluded that there is an increased possibility that Applicant’s family could become a means through which Applicant could be coerced. In making this conclusion she noted his frequent contacts with his mother and other relatives, as well as the geopolitical context of the two countries involved.

DISCUSSION

We have considered Applicant’s brief, which includes a reference to the circumstances of his foreign relatives, from which he argues that they are not of the sort likely to come to the attention of terrorists or other parties adverse to the U.S. We find no reason to believe that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence or that she failed to consider all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06622 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul, 2, 2012). We have considered the totality of Applicant’s arguments on appeal and find no error in the Judge’s ultimate conclusions regarding mitigation. 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 Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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