CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00787 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00787denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00787

Sep 14, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to concerns related to his in-laws residing in Iraq. The applicant admitted to having in-laws who are citizens and residents of Iraq, which raised security concerns consistent with Disqualifying Condition AG B1.

Despite admitting the allegations, the applicant argued that the presence of his in-laws in Iraq should not be a basis for denial. However, the Appeal Board upheld the original decision, affirming that the security concerns were valid and consistent with national security standards.

The Appeal Board concluded that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial denial. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“As a matter of common sense and human experience, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the persons’ spouse.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-03112 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 18, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 19, 2022after close of the record
Decision dateSep 14, 2022

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
The Rebuttable Presumption of Familial Ties Affecting Security Clearance Eligibility
The Standard for Granting Clearance as 'clearly Consistent with National Security'

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 related to the applicant's in-laws in Iraq. The applicant, representing himself, did not assert any specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding the decision sustainable on the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision to deny the security clearance based on the applicant's foreign influence concerns due to in-laws residing in Iraq. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any error that would warrant overturning the decision.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira Modzelewski

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 21-00787

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: September 14, 2022

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 18, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 19, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant has in-laws who are citizens and residents of Iraq. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted both SOR allegations. At the hearing, Applicant testified but offered no documentary evidence. In his appeal brief, he now provides a number of documents for the Appeal Board’s consideration. The Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29 (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”).

Applicant’s brief does not specifically assert the Judge committed any error in the decision. Rather, it asserts that he knows other individuals who apparently hold clearances and have relatives in Iraq. In this regard, the Directive provides that each case must be judged on its own merits. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). The fact that other individuals with relatives in Iraq may have been granted clearances does not establish the Judge erred in adjudicating Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant also contends that the fact he has in-laws living in Iraq is not a sufficient reason to deny him a security clearance. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, “[a]s a matter of common sense and human experience, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the persons’ spouse.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03112 at 3, n.1 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2015). It was not unreasonable for the Judge to conclude that security concerns arose from Applicant’s in-laws Iraq. In short, none of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to show the Judge committed any harmful error in the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with 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 national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board