KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: The Chief Administrative Judge mistakenly discusses statutory language which is
inapposite to the matter of granting a security clearance.  The Judge also confuses the question of
whether Applicant may be confronted with a choice with how Applicant might deal with such a
choice.  The Board does not hold an Administrative Judge to a standard of perfection.  There are
numerous unchallenged findings of fact which cumulatively support the Judge’s ultimate
conclusion.  Favorable decision affirmed.
CASENO: 02-17369.a2
DATE: 04/05/2007
DATE: April 5, 2007
In Re:
------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 02-17369
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric Borgstrom, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 7, 2004, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
The Chief Administrative Judge cites to a decision of a fellow Administrative Judge in ISCR Case 03-214341
(A.J. May 24, 2006).  That case was remanded by the Appeal Board because of error on the part of the Judge.  See ISCR
Case No. 03-21434 (App. Bd. Feb 20, 2007).
2
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On October 27, 2005, after the hearing, Chief Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales granted
Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel appealed.  The Appeal Board
remanded the case to the Chief Administrative Judge in a decision dated May 23, 2006.    The Chief
Administrative Judge issued a second favorable decision on May 25, 2006.  Department Counsel
timely appealed the decision after remand pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Chief Administrative
Judge’s favorable decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because of the Chief
Administrative Judge’s multiple misapplications of Guideline B Foreign Influence Mitigating
Condition 1 (MC 1); and whether the Chief Administrative Judge’s whole-person analysis is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Department Counsel’s arguments have merit with respect to the Chief Administrative Judge’s
misapplications of MC1.  Applicant’s brother appears to fit technically into the category “agent of
a foreign power.”  The Chief Administrative Judge mistakenly discusses statutory language from
other legal settings which are inapposite to the matter of granting a security clearance.  See ISCR
Case No. 04-00540 at 4-6 (App. Bd. Jan. 5, 2007).  Furthermore, the language of the statutes cited
is explicitly self-limiting.  Also, the Chief Administrative Judge’s analysis  confuses the question
(explicitly raised in MC1) of whether Applicant will have to make a choice between his Jordanian
relatives and the United States with the question (not raised in MC1) of how Applicant might deal
with such a choice if he were confronted with it.1
Nevertheless, the Appeal Board does not hold an Administrative Judge’s decisions to a
standard of perfection.  See ISCR Case 05-03143 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2007).   In this case, there
are numerous unchallenged findings of fact which cumulatively support the ultimate conclusion of
the Chief Administrative Judge’s whole-person analysis that Applicant has sufficiently strong ties
to the United States to overcome the government’s security concerns.  Those facts include: Applicant
immigrated to the United States in 1982; Applicant has been a United States citizen since 1986;
Applicant’s wife and children are US citizens;  Applicant has had a security clearance since 1991;
and  Applicant has not used a Jordanian passport since his arrival in the United States.  Considering
the record as a whole, the Chief Administrative Judge’s ultimate favorable security clearance
decision is sustainable.
3
Order
The decision of the Chief Administrative Judge granting Applicant a clearance is
AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board