CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02976.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02976.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02976.h1

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

Summary

A security clearance was granted to an applicant, a linguist with multiple combat deployments, despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons cited that the applicant's father, mother, several siblings, two brothers-in-law, an uncle, and two cousins are residents and citizens of Afghanistan. These family ties raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b).

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraph 8(b). The applicant demonstrated deep and long-standing loyalty to the United States through his combat deployments and provided evidence of significant family and financial ties within the U.S.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's foreign relatives did not create doubt about his reliability and trustworthiness, and that there was no conflict of interest with his Afghan relatives. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a deep and long-standing loyalty to the United States through his combat deployments.
The applicant provided evidence of family and financial ties to the United States, mitigating concerns about foreign influence.
The judge concluded that the applicant's foreign relatives did not create doubt about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedConnections to the U.S.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concern is mitigated under mitigating condition AG ¶ 8(b).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 4, 2017
Answer filedOct 19, 2017
Hearing heldJan 17, 2018
Decision dateFeb 1, 2018Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant.

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Loyalty in Security Clearance Decisions
Consideration of Family Ties in Security Clearance Evaluations

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's foreign influence concerns related to his family members in Afghanistan were mitigated by his deep ties to the United States, including combat deployments and financial connections. The judge concluded that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt, ultimately granting his eligibility for access to classified information.

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. Military or Government Service · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s father (a retired Afghan Army Lieutenant Colonel), mother, and several siblings, two brothers-in-law, an uncle, and two cousins are residents and citizens of Afghanistan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan 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	(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Documented Deep U.S. Ties
1.b–1.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

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. 17-02976 ) 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 October 4, 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 October 19, 2017. The case was assigned to me on December 13, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 17, 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 (a retired Afghan Army Lieutenant Colonel), mother, and several siblings, two brothers-in-law, an uncle, and two cousins 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.