ISCR Case No. 17-00507.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant argues that there is nothing wrong or suspicious with having family members living abroad, having a secondary home abroad, or visiting one’s birthplace. He also stated that he has no ties of loyalty or obligations to his foreign family members. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that his circumstances do not raise security concerns, we note the Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct or circumstances under any guideline and an applicant’s security eligibility. Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00507.a1 DATE: 06/13/2018 DATE: June 13, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00507

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 June 30, 2017, 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 decision on the written record. On April 25, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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. Background The SOR alleges that Applicant has three siblings and a mother-in-law who are citizens and residents of Algeria and that he owns land in Algeria that is valued over $90,000.1 In responding to the SOR, he admitted each allegation and submitted two short comments. One comment noted that he rarely communicates with the alleged family members and, if he does so, it is only to discuss family issues. In his other comment, he indicated that he intended to build a vacation home on his land in Algeria. In October, 2017, he received Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material and did not submit a response. In his decision, the Judge concluded that, because of the threat of terrorism, violence and human rights abuses in Algeria, the presence of Applicant’s family members in that country created security concerns. The Judge also noted that Applicant did not present sufficient information to mitigate those security concerns.

In his appeal brief, Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings or conclusions. He argues that there is nothing wrong or suspicious with having family members living abroad, having a secondary home abroad, or visiting one’s birthplace. He also stated that he has no ties of loyalty or obligations to his foreign family members. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that his circumstances do not raise security concerns, we note the Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct or circumstances under any guideline and an applicant’s security eligibility. Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08385 at 4 (App. Bd. May 23, 2018). To the extent that he is arguing the Judge mis-weighed the evidence, he has failed to show that Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan 8, 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

1 The SOR also alleged that one of the three siblings was a citizen of another country.