A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

ISCR Case No. 04-08870

Appeal Board

Decided Nov 29, 2006 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a security clearance decision where the Administrative Judge granted the clearance based on the Applicant's claims of infrequent contact with family in Iran. The Department Counsel appealed, arguing that the Judge failed to provide a rational basis for this conclusion. The Appeal Board reversed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were not supported by the evidence.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

his case makes it hard to evaluate his relationship with hith his family in Iran. Favorable decision reversed.

-->   <!-- 04-08870.a1

-->   <!-- 11/29/2006

--> <!-

Appeal Board Decision

---------

SSN: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 04-08870

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Robert E. Coacher, Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 6, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons

advising Applicant of the basis for that decision-- security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), pursuant to Department of Defense Directive

5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On March 24, 2006, after considering the

File of Relevant Material (FORM), Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny granted Applicant's request for a security clearance. Department Counsel submitted

a timely appeal pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrative Judge failed to articulate a rational basis for concluding that Applicant's

contacts with his siblings and nieces and nephews are casual and infrequent. We reverse the Administrative Judge's decision to grant the clearance.

II. Whether the Record Supports the Administrative Judge's Factual Findings

A. Facts

The Administrative Judge found that Applicant has worked as an engineer for a defense contractor since 1983. Applicant was born in Iran and became a

naturalized United States citizen in 1982. He has two daughters, both born in the United States.

In addition, Applicant has a brother and two sisters who are citizens and residents of Iran. The Administrative Judge found that the most recent evidence shows

that the brother owns an appliance store, and the sisters are housewives. He contacts his siblings twice a year, at Thanksgiving and at Christmas. Applicant

gave $800 total to his nieces and nephews in 2002 and $1500 in 2003.

The Administrative Judge also found that Iran is a nation hostile to the United States. It is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction and has a poor

human rights record. The

issue raised by Department Counsel pertains to the Administrative Judge's conclusions, which will be addressed below.

III. Whether the Record Supports the Administrative Judge's Ultimate Conclusions.

An Administrative Judge is required to "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for" the decision, "including a 'rational connection

between the facts found and the choice made.'" Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)

(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Appeal Board may reverse the Administrative Judge's decision to grant,

deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Our scope of review under this standard is narrow and

we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Administrative Judge. We may not set aside an Administrative Judge's decision "that is rational, based on

consideration of the relevant factors, and within the scope of the authority delegated to the agency ..." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 42. We review

matters of law de novo.

In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not

examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the

choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an

explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. ISCR

Case No. 03-01009 at 2 (App. Bd. March 29, 2005) (citations omitted).

Given the Administrative Judge's findings, he properly determined that Applicant's family ties raised security concerns und

Order

anation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. ISCR

Case No. 03-01009 at 2 (App. Bd. March 29, 2005) (citations omitted).

Given the Administrative Judge's findings, he properly determined that Applicant's family ties raised security concerns und