CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-18918.a2 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date5/23/2008
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 06-18918.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 06-18918.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 06-18918.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-18918.a2

deniedMay 23, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· hearing

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, sought reconsideration of a prior security clearance denial, alleging discrimination based on his birthplace. The Board reviewed the request but ultimately denied the security clearance.

The denial was based on multiple security concerns, including foreign influence, foreign preference, personal conduct, and financial considerations. The applicant failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims of discrimination or offer persuasive reasons to alter the Board's initial decision.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's family ties in a hostile country. This connection placed a heavy burden on the applicant to demonstrate that these relationships did not pose a security risk, a burden he did not meet. Consequently, the request for reconsideration was denied, and the security clearance remained denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not substantiate claims of discrimination with evidence.
The applicant failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution.
The applicant has family members in a hostile country, increasing the burden of proof regarding security risks.

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant with family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a "heavy burden" in demonstrating that those family members do not pose a security risk.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007)

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 23, 2008
Request for Reconsideration FiledApr 21, 2008
Prior Decision DateMar 28, 2008
Chief Department Counsel Reply BriefMay 5, 2008No reply brief was filed.

Cite For

Heavy Burden of Proof for Applicants with Family Ties in Hostile Countries
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Discrimination
Discretion of the Board in Reconsideration Requests

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board has sole discretion on whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. Applicant has not drawn attention to anything in the Board’s decision or the record to support his contention (he believes he is the victim of discrimination. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of the case. Applicant;’s request denied. CASENO: 06-18918.a2 DATE: 05/23/2008 DATE: May 23, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-18918

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in this case on March 28, 2008. On April 21, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision. On May 5, 2008, the Chief Department Counsel advised that he would not file a Reply Brief. The Board has inherent authority to entertain requests to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999). In his request for reconsideration, Applicant asserts that the Board’s adverse decision amounts to his being “judged by [his] birthplace.” The Board also construes Applicant’s request as contending that the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Board has considered Applicant’s brief in light of our prior decision. Applicant has not drawn attention to anything in the decision or the record to support his contentions. He merely states that he “believe[s] that [he is] a victim of discrimination . . .” As the Board noted in its decision, an applicant with family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a “heavy burden” in demonstrating that those family members do not pose a security risk. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07- 00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007). That burden is even heavier where the applicant has close ties to those family members, and there is evidence that the family has previously been targeted by the regime for political reasons. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-02511 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2007). Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of his case. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2005). Accordingly, Applicant’s request is denied. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board