CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08842.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08842.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08842.a1

Feb 14, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from the applicant's close family ties remaining in Afghanistan, a country identified with ongoing terrorist activity and geopolitical instability.

The judge determined that these connections presented a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, coercion, and manipulation. The applicant's arguments, which asserted minimal contact with family members abroad, were deemed insufficient to mitigate the identified security concerns.

Ultimately, the appeal board upheld the denial, concurring with the assessment that the applicant's foreign family ties posed an unacceptable risk under Guideline B.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proved facts under any of the guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 12-00084 at 3 (App. Bd. May 22, 2014)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 3, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 18, 2016
Decision dateFeb 14, 2017

Cite For

Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Nexus Presumption in Security Clearance Evaluations
Impact of Geopolitical Instability on Security Clearance Decisions

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 concerns under Guideline B due to the Applicant's connections to Afghanistan. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in assessing the risk of foreign exploitation and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — 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 erred in concluding that his connections to Afghanistan raised security concerns.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended 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 conclusion regarding the Applicant's connections to Afghanistan and the associated security concerns. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.

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
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: The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proved facts under any of the guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. Applicant’s contacts in a country with terrorist activity raise an issue of a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, coercion, etc. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-08842.a1 DATE: 02/14/2017 DATE: February 14, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-08842

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 May 3, 2016, 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 November 18, 2016, after the hearing, 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. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that his connections to Afghanistan raised security concerns and 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 Educated in Afghanistan, Applicant came to the U.S. in 2008. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2013. Applicant’s parents, siblings, and stepmother are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. His father retired from the Afghan military and was twice imprisoned by the Taliban. Applicant testified that he speaks with his parents on holidays and with his mother every six months. In his security clearance application, however, he stated that he spoke with his parents and siblings each month. Between mid-2011 and early 2014, Applicant lived with his parents in Afghanistan because of his unemployment. Applicant was married but has since divorced. His father had arranged the marriage. His sibling assisted in completing the paperwork for the divorce. The State Department warns U.S. citizens not to travel in Afghanistan due to political instability and terrorist threats. Extremist groups operate within Afghanistan, and the country continues to experience coordinated attacks by the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan has significant human rights problems, such as torture of detainees, disregard for the rule of law, and little accountability for those committing abuses. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted that close relations with someone who is a citizen and resident of a foreign country is not per se disqualifying. However, under the facts of this case, she concluded that evidence of Applicant’s close family ties in Afghanistan, the presence of terrorist activity in that country, and Afghanistan’s poor human rights record create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, coercion, etc. In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, she noted that he has regular contact with his family members, even if the frequency of such contact has diminished in the past two years. She also cited to the influence of his father in Applicant’s marriage, suggesting a degree of closeness in the relationship. The Judge concluded that the evidence left her with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility for a clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that he has minimal contact with his family in Afghanistan and that there is no heightened risk of exploitation. We note first of all that the Government does not have to present objective evidence of a nexus between an applicant’s foreign connections and his security worthiness. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00084 at 3 (App. Bd. May 22, 2014). Rather, the Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proved facts under any of the guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). As the Judge noted, Applicant’s contacts in a country with terrorist activities raise an issue of a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, manipulation, coercion, etc. Decision at 7-9. Given the Judge’s findings about Applicant’s close family relations in Afghanistan, the geopolitical situation of that country, and his father’s having come to the attention of the Taliban on some prior occasions, we find no reason to disturb her heightened risk analysis. Applicant’s appeal brief amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. However, this is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016). 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, 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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