A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-02849.h1
GrantedDecided Feb 1, 2018 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a linguist with multiple combat deployments, faced security concerns under Guideline B due to family ties in Afghanistan. The judge found that the applicant's strong loyalty to the U.S. and lack of conflict of interest with his Afghan relatives mitigated the concerns, leading to a favorable decision.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a deep and long-standing loyalty to the United States through his military service.
- There was no conflict of interest with his family members in Afghanistan.
- The applicant's favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence regarding his foreign contacts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 7(a) Foreign influenceraised
- AG ¶ 7(b) Foreign influenceraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 8(b) Connections to the U.S.applied
Key rule quoted
“The concern over foreign relatives does not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 08/30/2017
- Answer filed
- 09/14/2017
- Hearing held
- 01/16/2018
- Decision date
- 02/01/2018 Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
- Importance of Military Service in Establishing Loyalty to the U.S.
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations.
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02849 ) 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 August 30, 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 September 14, 2017. The case was assigned to me on October 20, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 16, 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 father, mother, and several siblings are residents and citizens of Afghanistan. Through Applicant’s admissions and administrative noticed facts about Afghanistan, the Government established, by substantial evidence, a heightened risk concerning Applicant’s contacts with his Afghan relatives. AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b) apply. Applicant testified and presented documentary evidence establishing there is no conflict of interest with his family members in Afghanistan because of his deep and long-standing relationship and loyalties to the United States, as evidenced by his numerous combat deployments with U.S. forces acting as a linguist in hostile-fire situations and his family and financial ties to the United States. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concern is mitigated under mitigating condition AG ¶ 8(b).
The concern over Applicant’s foreign relatives 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.