ISCR Case 19-01689

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01689

grantedFeb 26, 2020· Hon. John Bayard Glendon· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons raised several allegations, including that the applicant had family members and a friend residing in Afghanistan, creating a potential conflict of interest regarding classified information. Additionally, an initial statement by the applicant during an interview suggested equal allegiance to both the U.S. and Afghanistan.

However, the applicant provided a clarifying explanation in his Answer, which indicated that the facts surrounding the allegiance statement did not give rise to a security concern under Guideline B. The applicant's evidence was also deemed sufficient to mitigate security concerns related to his family circumstances.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant's extensive service as a linguist in a war zone demonstrated a strong commitment to U.S. national security. He also provided credible evidence of his loyalty to the U.S. and his ability to manage potential conflicts of interest. Ultimately, the applicant's relationships with family members in Afghanistan were not deemed to pose a significant risk of foreign influence.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's service in a war zone demonstrated a strong commitment to U.S. national security.
The applicant provided credible evidence of his loyalty to the U.S. and his ability to manage potential conflicts of interest.
The applicant's relationships with family members in Afghanistan were not deemed to pose a significant risk of foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant's family ties in Afghanistan created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign PersonsThe applicant's connections to foreign individuals created a potential conflict of interest.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedStrong Ties to the U.S.The applicant's significant contributions to U.S. national security indicated strong loyalty to the U.S.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 29, 2019
Answer filedOct 31, 2019
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 26, 2020

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Significant Contributions to National Security as a Mitigating Factor
The Importance of Whole-person Analysis in 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has family members and a friend who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	—
1.b	Applicant's evidence was sufficient to mitigate security concerns raised by his family circumstances.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant's connections to foreign persons create a potential for a conflict of interest between Applicant's obligation to protect classified or sensitive information and his desire to help a foreign person.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	— HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.d	The allegation in SOR ¶ 1.e sets forth security concerns about Applicant's statement in the Interview that his allegiance to the U.S. was the same as his allegiance to Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's clarifying explanation in his Answer indicates that the facts surrounding this allegation do not give rise to a security concern under Guideline B.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has family members and a friend who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

—

1.b

Applicant's evidence was sufficient to mitigate security concerns raised by his family circumstances.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

1.c

Applicant's connections to foreign persons create a potential for a conflict of interest between Applicant's obligation to protect classified or sensitive information and his desire to help a foreign person.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.d

The allegation in SOR ¶ 1.e sets forth security concerns about Applicant's statement in the Interview that his allegiance to the U.S. was the same as his allegiance to Afghanistan.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

1.e

Applicant's clarifying explanation in his Answer indicates that the facts surrounding this allegation do not give rise to a security concern under Guideline B.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION