CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-02141.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date11/13/2013
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 12-02141.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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 12-02141.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-02141.a1

Nov 13, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The primary concern stemmed from the applicant's family ties in Afghanistan, which raised a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 6(a) due to the potential for foreign influence.

Despite the applicant's efforts to mitigate these risks, including relocating his family to a safer area within Afghanistan, these actions were deemed insufficient. The judge determined that the ongoing threat from terrorist organizations in Afghanistan meant the potential for family members to be exploited by hostile forces remained a significant security risk.

Consequently, the mitigating conditions cited in AG ¶ 8(a) and AG ¶ 8(b) were not enough to overcome the foreign influence concerns. The security clearance was ultimately denied due to the persistent and unmitigated security threat posed by the applicant's family connections in Afghanistan.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe applicant's efforts to relocate his family were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe applicant's family ties in a country with terrorist activity posed an ongoing risk.

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 issuedDec 7, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 29, 2013
Decision dateNov 13, 2013

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Insufficient Mitigation of Risks Posed by Family Ties in a Foreign Country
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance in Relation 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider evidence regarding his family's relocation to a safer location in Afghanistan. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supportable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider evidence regarding his family's relocation to a safer location in Afghanistan.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supportable based on the evidence of the Applicant's family connections in Afghanistan and the activities of terrorist organizations there. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 B; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Given the record evidence of the extent of Applicant’s family connections in Afghanistan and the activities of terrorist organizations there, the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline B is supportable. CASENO: 12-02141.a1 DATE: 11/13/2013 DATE: November 13, 2013 In Re: -----------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-02141

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 December 7, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under 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 August 29, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 failed to consider the evidence and whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines F and E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was born in Afghanistan and immigrated to the U.S. in the late 1980s. He was naturalized a citizen of this country in the early 2000s. He works for a Defense contractor and enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work and for his reliability. Applicant’s mother, wife, and children are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. He speaks with them frequently and is their sole source of support. Applicant has not advised his family that he works for the U.S. Government, and he has moved them to a safer location in Afghanistan. He has hired an attorney to facilitate his family’s move to the U.S. at some time in the future. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. and its allies liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. Although it has made significant progress since then, the country still faces challenges, including the presence within its borders of various terrorist groups. Authorities have limited ability to maintain order and ensure the safety of Afghan citizens and foreign visitors. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s family circumstances raised concerns under Guideline B. In evaluating his case for mitigation, the Judged stated that Applicant’s family presence in Afghanistan “raises a significant security concern because of the realistic danger that they can be used by hostile forces within Afghanistan to influence or manipulate him.” Decision at 6. He stated that, despite Applicant’s attempts to shield his family from danger, they remain vulnerable to the threat posed by extremist elements in the country. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s service to the U.S. Nevertheless, he concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his family circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that he has moved his family to a safer location in Afghanistan. We construe this as an argument that the Judge did not consider this evidence. The Judge made a finding about this matter and discussed it in his Analysis. However, given record evidence of the extent of Applicant’s family connections in Afghanistan and the activities of terrorist organizations there, the Judge’s adverse decision is supportable. See ISCR Case No. 12-05609 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2013) (The presence of terrorist activity in a foreign country is a significant factor in Guideline B cases.) Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10- 00989 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2011). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board