CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-16381.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/1/2009
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 07-16381.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

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 07-16381.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-16381.a1

Apr 1, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 51-year-old U.S. citizen, originally from Lebanon, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), E (Personal Conduct), and F (Financial Considerations). The denial was primarily driven by the applicant's financial support to family members residing in Lebanon.

This financial assistance raised significant foreign influence concerns, particularly given Lebanon's political instability and its documented ties to terrorist organizations. These factors contributed to the determination that the applicant posed an unacceptable security risk.

The applicant presented arguments intended to mitigate these concerns; however, the Appeal Board found them insufficient. Consequently, the Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not adequately addressed the security risks related to foreign influence and preference.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG BraisedForeign Influence
AG CraisedForeign Preference
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Each case must be decided on its own merits.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 30, 2009
Decision dateApr 1, 2009

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Foreign Preference Issues Under Guideline C
Financial Considerations Impacting Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline F

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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to concerns under Guidelines B and C. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in not finding sufficient mitigation for the security concerns. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline C

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in failing to conclude that he had mitigated the Guideline B security concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the adverse security clearance decision based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody

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 C; Guideline B DIGEST: Each case must be decided on its own merits. Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Appeal Board. A judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-16381.a1 DATE: 04/01/2009 DATE: April 1, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-16381

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 15, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines C, F, and E are not at issue in this appeal. the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 erred in failing to conclude that Applicant had mitigated the Guideline B security concerns in his case. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a Defense contractor. Born in Lebanon, he came to the U.S. to pursue his education. He became a U.S. citizen in the mid-1980sand received his B.A. degree in the year following. He married his wife, a Lebanese citizen and U.S. resident alien, in the early 2000s. Applicant’s parents and brother live in Lebanon, as does his mother-in-law. He sends between $1,000 and $1,400 per month to both families in Lebanon. Applicant stated during his testimony that his parents are more important to him than Lebanon, that he has loyalty to his relatives but not to Lebanon itself. Although the U.S. has close ties with Lebanon, that country has experienced social and political instability in the recent past. Lebanon’s internal policies are heavily influenced by Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism. Foreign terrorist organizations operate within Lebanon’s borders. These include Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government recognizes as a political party. Hezbollah is allied with Iran and has been involved in several attempts to obtain U.S. technology. Lebanon has a poor human rights record. “Militias and non-Lebanese forces operating outside the area of Lebanese central government authority have used informers and monitored telephones to obtain information about their perceived adversaries.” Decision at 4. In support of his appeal, Applicant points to decisions by the Hearing Office, which he argues support his request for a favorable determination. The Board gives due consideration to these cases. However, each case “must be decided upon its own merits.” Directive ¶ E2.2.3. Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board. See ISCR Case No. 06-24121 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008). Applicant argues that the Judge did not properly consider his mitigating evidence regarding his strong ties to the U.S. However, a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he specifically states otherwise. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 12. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security’”).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y: Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board