ISCR Case No. 16-03468.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03468 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

October 6, 2017 ______________

______________

MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:

Statement of the Case

On December 21, 2016, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline B.1 The SOR further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.

On February 18, 2017, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR, and requested that the case be decided after a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to this administrative judge on June 13, 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 20, 2017, scheduling the hearing for August 29, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled. On August 30, 2017, I proposed to the parties by email that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant and Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter. Neither party submitted any objection.

Applicant was born in Iran in 1954. He moved to the United States in 1977 and became a United States citizen in 1986.

The allegations concerning Guideline B were that several of Applicant’s relatives, including his three brothers, two sisters, and mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of Iran. Applicant admitted all of the allegations, except he indicated that his father-in-law was deceased. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline B.

I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. I considered that Applicant has limited contact with his relatives, none of whom have or have had any connection with the government of Iran. I also considered that Applicant has many ties to the United States, including the following: Applicant’s wife and two sons and his wife’s sister are all United States citizens and residents. Applicant owns his own home in the United States, and he estimated his total assets in the United States are worth approximately $3 million, while he has no assets in Iran. Finally, Applicant has not travelled to Iran since his parents died 12 or 13 years ago. Therefore, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions under Guideline B: AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of foreign influence do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered whether or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant has met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge

1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006.