CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-16522.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-16522.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-16522.h1

grantedJul 15, 2004· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Iran, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) related to her family ties in Iran. The Statement of Reasons noted that her parents, a retired civil engineer and a retired school district employee, and her sister, an underwriter for a private insurance company, are all citizens and residents of Iran. The Applicant also held a one-third interest in her parents' house in Iran, which she intended to transfer to her sister.

However, the judge found that several mitigating conditions applied. The Applicant maintained limited contact with her Iranian relatives, speaking with them only three or four times a year. Her substantial financial interests in the U.S. were deemed to outweigh her minor foreign financial interest. Furthermore, her family members were not identified as agents of a foreign power and were considered unlikely to be exploited.

Ultimately, the Applicant's demonstrated loyalty and lack of vulnerability to coercion led to the granting of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant's limited contact with her Iranian relatives mitigated foreign influence concerns.
Her substantial financial interests in the U.S. outweighed her minor foreign financial interest.
The Applicant's family members are not agents of a foreign power and are unlikely to be exploited.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B.2.araisedForeign Influence Due to Immediate Family Members Being Citizens of a Foreign Country.

Mitigating

B.1appliedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power or in a Position to Be Exploited.
B.3appliedThe Foreign Financial Interest Is Minimal Compared to the Applicant's Financial Interests in the U.S.

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who is subject to a foreign influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 5, 2004
Answer filedFeb 4, 2004
Hearing heldMay 18, 2004
Decision dateJul 15, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Consideration of Financial Interests in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Limited Family Contact on Foreign Influence 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's foreign influence concerns were mitigated by her limited contact with her Iranian relatives and her substantial ties to the United States. The applicant's family members in Iran are not affiliated with the government, and she has no significant financial interests that would pose a risk. Therefore, the judge granted the security clearance.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant's parents are citizens of and reside in Iran.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Other
1.b	The Applicant's father is a retired civil engineer and her mother is retired from working for a school district.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Other
1.c	The Applicant's sister works for a private insurance company as an underwriter.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Other
1.d	The Applicant contacts her Iranian relatives only about 3 or 4 times a year.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Iran	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Other
1.e	The Applicant owns a 1/3 interest in her parents house in Iran and intends to transfer her interest to her sister.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	Iran	Admitted	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Claimed 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

DATE: July 15, 2004

In Re:

-------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-16522

ECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

RICHARD A. CEFOLA

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant came from Iran to the United States in 1984. She married a native born American in 1993, and became a naturalized citizen in 1995. She attended college in the U.S., and received a degree in 2001. Her father, mother and sister are citizens of and live in Iran. Her father is 83 and her mother 76. Both retired before the Iranian revolution. Her sister works for a private insurance company as an underwriter. Her contact with her Iranian relatives is limited to 3 or 4 times a year. She owns a 1/3 interest in her parents house. She intends to transfer her interest to her sister, and her interest pales in comparison to her and her spouse's $400,000 net worth in the U.S. She would not submit to coercion, exploitation or pressure from a foreign government vis-a-vis her Iranian relatives. Mitigation is shown. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On January 5, 2004, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on or about February 4, 2004.

The case was received by the undersigned on March 22, 2004. A notice of hearing was issued on April 8, 2004, and the case was heard on May 18, 2004. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who called a witness to testify on her behalf. The transcript was received on June 3, 2004. The issue raised here is whether the Applicant's perceived foreign influence militates against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis of all of the allegations.]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony. The Applicant is 42, and is employed by a defense contractor that seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Guideline B - Foreign Influence

The Applicant came from Iran to the United States in 1984 (Transcript (TR) at page 18 line 7 to page 19 line 13, and at page 21 lines 12–18). She married a native born American in 1993, and became a naturalized citizen in 1995 (id, and TR at page 35 line 24 to page 39 line 9). She attended college in the U.S., and received a degree in 2001. (Government Exhibit (GX) 1 at page 1).

1.a.~1.e. The Applicant's parents are citizens of and reside in Iran (GX 1 at page 3). Her 83 year old father is a retired civil engineer (TR at page 14 line 22 to page 15 line 17, and at page 24 line 5 to page 25 line 10). He retired before the fall of the Shah of Iran (id). Her 76 year old mother is retired from working for a school district (TR at page 15 line 18 to page 16 line 5, and at page 26 lines 10–22). She also retired before the fall of the Shah of Iran (id). The Applicant's 36 year old sister works for a private insurance company as an underwriter (TR at page 16 lines 6–17, and at page 27 line 20 to page 28 line 17). The Applicant contacts her Iranian relative only about 3 or 4 times a year (TR at page 17 lines 6–20, and at page 25 lines 12–18). Without the Applicant's prior knowledge, her parents gave the Applicant a 1/3 interest in their house in Iran (TR at page 16 line 18 to page 17 line 6, at page 29 line 9 to page 30 line 16, and at page 31 line 18 to page 32 line 4).

She intends to give her 1/3 interest to her sister (id). The Applicant's and her spouse's net worth in the U.S. is about $400,000 (TR at page 22 line 14 to page 23 line 5, and at page 35 lines 13–18). She would not submit to coercion, exploitation or pressure from a foreign government vis-a-vis her Iranian relatives (TR at page 30 line 17 to page 31 line 6).

Mitigation

The Applicant's Manager and Test Lead aver that she is trustworthy, and should be granted a security clearance (AppXs A and B).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:

a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding circumstances.

b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.

c. Age and maturity of the applicant.

d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved.

e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.

f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.

The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.

The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (foreign influence), which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and her ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.

Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past disqualifying conduct, is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.

An individual who is subject to a foreign influence, may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations, at all times and in all places.

CONCLUSION

When the Applicant became a U.S. citizen in 1995, she renounced her Iranian citizenship. She married a native born American and pursued her college education as an American at an American institution.

The Applicant's parents and sister, however, are citizens of and live in Iran. The second disqualifying condition under Foreign Influence is therefore applicable as "[a]nimmediate family member . . . is a citizen of . . . a foreign country." Her parents are elderly, both having retired prior to the current regime coming to power. Her sister works for a private insurance company as an underwriter. None of the Applicant's immediate family are presently connected with any government, and there is no evidence that their presence in Iran can be exploited by any government. In addition, I conclude that it would be unlikely that the Applicant would even consider any such attempt at exploitation. The first mitigation condition is therefore applicable as "the immediate family members . . . are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the persons involved and the United States."

The Applicant does own a 1/3 interest in her parents house. She intends to transfer her interest to her sister. This 1/3 interest is not "substantial;" and as such, the last disqualifying condition is not applicable. Were it deemed to be substantial, this "[f]oreign financial interest" would be "minimal" when compared to her $400,000 U.S. net worth. The third mitigating condition would therefore be applicable. As mitigation is shown, Guideline B is also found in the Applicant's favor.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding her alleged foreign influence. The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline B, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, she has met her ultimate burden of persuasion under Guideline B.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant.

b. For the Applicant.

c. For the Applicant.

d. For the Applicant.

e. For the Applicant. Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Richard A. Cefola

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

03-16522.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16522.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:25:23 PM] 03-16522.h1