CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07079.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07079.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07079.a1

Oct 19, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from the applicant's extensive family ties and financial interests in India, which were determined to raise significant security concerns.

Specifically, the judge found that these connections presented substantial foreign influence risks. The applicant's appeal was denied because none of the mitigating conditions outlined in Guideline B were found to be applicable to her circumstances.

The decision highlighted that the disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 7 were raised and not overcome. Consequently, the security clearance was denied due to unresolved foreign influence concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence

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 issuedApr 21, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 8, 2017
Decision dateOct 19, 2017

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
The Impact of Family Ties on Security Clearance Decisions
The Standard for Granting Security Clearances 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 seeking a security clearance who was denied based on security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge adequately considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 DIGEST: Viewed as a whole, the Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-07079.a1 DATE: 10/19/2017 DATE: October 19, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07079

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 April 21, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 8, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was born in India, moving to the U.S. in the early 2000s. She became a U.S. citizen about eight years after she moved here. Applicant and her spouse have two children, both of whom are U.S. citizens. Her husband was born in India and is an Indian citizen. Applicant’s parents, siblings, and parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. One of her siblings works for a branch of the Indian government. Applicant and her spouse maintain a bank account in India, and her spouse has five bank accounts there as well. Applicant’s spouse is responsible for the care of his parents and siblings, who are financially dependent upon him. In addition, Applicant’s spouse owns eight properties in India, valued at about $560,000. Most of this property was inherited. Applicant’s spouse also has a life insurance property acquired from an Indian agency. Before becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant and her spouse considered moving back to India, which was a reason that they invested in property in India. After they had children, they decided to remain in the U.S. India is a secular democratic republic. The U.S. has sought to strengthen its relationship with India, although there are differences between the two countries, such as India’s nuclear weapons program, its abuses of human rights, and its cooperation with Iran. India is an active collector of U.S. protected information. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s connections to India raise security concerns. He further concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were entitled to favorable application. He stated that the evidence left him with doubts as to Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence that she believes the Judge did not consider. In doing so, she refers to matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. She notes that her spouse is a naturalized citizen of the U.S. She also cites to evidence that much of the property that he owns in India was inherited. Regarding the nationality of Applicant’s spouse, her security clearance application (SCA) states that he is a citizen of India, although she corrected this during her clearance interview, in which she states that he is a citizen only of the U.S. Item 4, SCA, at 22; Item 6, Personal Subject Interview, at 3. This error did not likely affect the outcome of the case, given the extent of Applicant’s established connections in India. Viewed as a whole, the Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017). The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board