CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00775.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00775.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00775.h1

grantedFeb 1, 2018· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved a U.S. citizen with family and financial ties to Pakistan, raising concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including that the applicant's mother is a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen, his sister and her family are Pakistani citizens and residents, and his brother-in-law is employed by the Pakistani Merchant Navy. Additionally, other in-laws reside in Pakistan, the applicant owns land there valued at approximately $30,000, and he sends money to his mother-in-law in Pakistan. These facts invoked Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b), and AG ¶ 7(f).

However, the decision ultimately applied Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 8(b) and AG ¶ 8(f). The applicant successfully demonstrated strong ties to the United States through his work history and financial interests. It was determined that his relationships with family members in Pakistan did not create a conflict of interest.

Crucially, the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were not undermined by foreign influence. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant established strong ties to the United States through work history and financial interests.
The applicant's relationships with family members in Pakistan did not create a conflict of interest.
The applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were not undermined by foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7(f)raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedThe Nature of the Relationships with Foreign Persons Is Such That They Do Not Pose a Security Risk.
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to the United States.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concern does not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 17, 2017
Answer filedMay 5, 2017
Hearing heldJan 18, 2018
Decision dateFeb 1, 2018Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant on 01/24/2018.

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Concerns

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had significant foreign influence concerns due to family ties in Pakistan, including a dual citizen mother and relatives residing there. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating strong ties to the United States, including work history and financial interests, leading to a decision in favor of the applicant.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Financial Assets Predominant

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s mother is a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen who splits time residing in both countries.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	His sister and her family are citizens and residents of Pakistan.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	His brother-in-law is employed by the Pakistani Merchant Navy.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.d	His other in-laws are residents and citizens of Pakistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.e	He owns land in Pakistan valued at approximately $30,000.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.f	He sends money to his mother-in-law in Pakistan.	For Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative Financial or Property Interest	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	Credited Deep U.S. Ties

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00775 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Andrew W. Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/01/2018 ______________

DECISION

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

On April 17, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).1

Applicant responded (Answer) to the SOR on May 5, 2017. The case was assigned to me on October 11, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 18, 2018. On January 24, 2018, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

The concern under Guideline B is that Applicant’s mother is a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen who splits time residing in both countries; that his sister and her family are citizens and residents of Pakistan and that his brother-in-law is employed by the Pakistani Merchant Navy; that his other in-laws are residents and citizens of Pakistan; that he owns land in Pakistan valued at approximately $30,000; and that he sends money to his mother-in-law in Pakistan. Through Applicant’s admissions and administrative noticed facts about Pakistan, the Government established, by substantial evidence, a heightened risk concerning Applicant’s contacts with his Afghan relatives and his property in Pakistan. AG ¶¶ 7(a), 7(b), and 7(f) apply. Applicant testified and presented documentary evidence establishing there is no conflict of interest with his family members in Pakistan because of his deep and long-standing relationship and loyalties to the United States, as evidenced by his work history and his substantial financial ties to the United States. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concern is mitigated under mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 8(b) and 8(f).

The concern over Applicant’s foreign relatives and his foreign financial interest does 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 if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this case under the previous AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using either set of AG.