CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-06925.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-06925.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06925.a1

Aug 24, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen and linguist, originally from Egypt, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to demonstrate sufficient diligence in resolving delinquent debts, as well as unmitigated security risks associated with her Egyptian relatives.

Specifically, the judge found that the applicant did not adequately address her financial obligations, which raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20. Furthermore, concerns regarding potential foreign influence from her family in Egypt were not mitigated, aligning with disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to resolve her delinquent debts and did not mitigate the security risks posed by her foreign connections, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 18, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 28, 2010
Decision dateAug 24, 2010

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Insufficient Resolution of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 financial considerations and foreign influence. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were contrary to the evidence and that the whole-person analysis was flawed. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable based on the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision under Guideline F was contrary to the weight of the record evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in the application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's whole-person analysis was in error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial considerations and foreign influence were supported by substantial evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 F; Guideline B DIGEST: Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had failed to demonstrate diligence in paying off delinquent debts is sustainable. Applicant’s Egyptian relatives raise security concerns that Applicant failed to mitigate. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-06925.a1 DATE: 08/24/2010 DATE: August 24, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-06925

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 18, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 28, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision under Guideline F was contrary to the weight of the record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his “[I]n-laws represent a class of persons who are contemplated by the Directive as presenting a potential security risk . . . [T]here is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the person’s spouse.” ISCR Case No. 03-26176 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 14, 2005). application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was in error. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a linguist working for a Defense contractor. She was born, raised, and educated in Egypt. Applicant first traveled to the U.S. in the late 1970s. She and her husband immigrated to this country in the 1980sand became U.S. citizens in the early 1990s. She has three siblings, two of whom are citizens and residents of the U.S. and one of whom is a citizen and resident of Egypt. She contacts her Egyptian sibling approximately twice a month. Applicant also has in-laws who are citizens and residents of Egypt. In addition, her husband has an uncle who, in his late teens, had belonged to a terrorist organization. He is now a citizen and resident of the U.S. and teaches at a U.S. university. Before becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant’s husband was an official in an Egyptian governmental organization. Applicant and her siblings inherited a house and land in Egypt. Applicant intends to renounce her interest in the property. She has traveled to Egypt in order to visit relatives and to sightsee. Applicant has delinquent debts owed to a department store and to a utility company. Although she claims to have disputed these debts, she provided no corroboration. Egypt has an excellent relationship with the U.S. and receives substantial U.S. foreign aid. However, terrorist groups carry out attacks in Egypt, targeting U.S. interests. “Terrorist groups conduct intelligence activities as effectively as state intelligence services.” Decision at 8. Applicant requests that the Board exercise de novo review over her appeal. However, the Board does not have authority to review a case de novo. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 08-10204 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). In evaluating the Guideline F security concerns, the Judge noted that Applicant had paid off a number of her debts or had reasonably disputed others. However, as to the remaining ones cited in the SOR, his decision that she had failed to show diligence in attempting to resolve them is supportable. Concerning Guideline B, the extent of Applicant’s foreign relatives, to include in- laws, supports the Judge’s adverse conclusion. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the record evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06- 21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2009). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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 adverse 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).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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