CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00507.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00507.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00507.a1

Jun 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties and land ownership in Algeria. The applicant admitted to having family members in Algeria and owning land valued over $90,000 in the country.

The judge determined that these foreign ties created security concerns, specifically citing the threat of terrorism and human rights abuses in Algeria. The applicant failed to provide sufficient information to mitigate these concerns.

The appeal board upheld the denial, affirming the presumption of a nexus between the applicant's foreign ties and potential security risks, and concluding that the presented evidence was inadequate to overcome these issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“the Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct or circumstances under any guideline and an applicant’s security eligibility.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 30, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 25, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateJun 13, 2018Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Nexus Presumption in Foreign Influence Cases Under Guideline B
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Foreign Influence Concerns
Affirmation of Lower Judge's Findings Regarding Security Eligibility

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, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's findings were arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Charles C. Hale
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: 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

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 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.

DISCUSSION

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.”

ORDER

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

FOOTNOTES

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