KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Given the sparse record in this case, it is difficult to justify the Judge ‘s conclusion that
Applicant has a “a history of service to this country.”  The Judge did not discuss in his whole
person analysis the significance of Applicant’s possession of a current valid Iranian passport. 
Nor did he discuss the security significance of the persecution Applicant’s family has already
suffered in Iran.  Favorable decision reversed.
CASENO: 04-12435.a1
DATE: 04/09/2007
DATE: April 9, 2007
In Re:
---------
SSN: -----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-12435
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer Campbell, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 4, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and
Department Counsel does not appeal the Judge’s findings and conclusions as to Guideline C.1
2
Guideline B (Foreign Influence), of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On June
30, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny granted Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s whole person
analysis is unsupported by record evidence and is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.1
Applicant submitted a response which primarily restates the information he submitted in response
to the SOR.  To the extent that the reply brief contains information not contained in the record
below, however, that information is new evidence, which the Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶
3.1.29.  We reverse the Administrative Judge’s decision to grant the security clearance.
Whether the Record Supports the Administrative Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Administrative Judge made the following relevant findings of fact:
In 1984, Applicant moved to the United States.  Applicant married an American citizen in
1987.  They divorced in 1991.  Applicant became a naturalized American citizen in 1993.  To assist
in the settlement of his father’s estate, Applicant applied for an Iranian passport and paid a fee to the
Iranian government for it in lieu of military service.  Applicant never used the passport for travel,
and it expired in 2006.  Applicant has no property in or attachments to Iran.
When Applicant’s father died intestate, ownership of the family home passed to Applicant’s
mother and all the children.  When Applicant’s mother decided to sell the home and move to the
U.S., Applicant and his seven siblings had to provide quitclaim deeds before the house could be sold.
Applicant had to have an Iranian passport for his quitclaim deed to be acceptable to the Iranian
government.  
Applicant’s mother and most of his siblings are now registered aliens in the U.S.  One sibling
lives in Australia.  One sister and an uncle remain citizens and residents of Iran.  They belong to a
minority religion in Iran and are subject to systemic persecution.  The uncle is blind and in his
eighties, and moving to another country would be very difficult for him.  Applicant has not seen
these two relatives in eighteen years, but speaks to them regularly.  Applicant acknowledges he is
bound to his sister by ties of affection and, to a lesser extent, to his uncle         
Iran has been hostile to the U.S. since the Islamic Revolution began in 1979.  Iran supports
terrorist groups and is making efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.  Iran has a poor record
of human rights, and there is evidence of summary executions, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture
and other degrading treatment of prisoners, and violence against women.  There is no indication that
Iran has ever attempted to exploit any resident of Iran for the purpose of compromising a security
clearance holder in the U.S.
“An immediate family member...is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country.”  Directive ¶ 2
D2.A2.1.2.1.  
“A determination that the immediate family member(s)...in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a3
position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the
person(s) involved and the United States.”  Directive  ¶  E2.A2.1.3.1.
3
On August 16, 2000, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC3I) issued guidance clarifying the application of the
Foreign Preference adjudicative guidline.  The ASDC3I memo states any clearance must be denied
or revoked unless the applicant surrenders the foreign passport or obtains approval for its use from
the appropriate agency of the U.S. government.  A copy of the ASDC3I’s memo was sent to
Applicant as part of the FORM.  The record contains no evidence of surrender of the Iranian passport
by Applicant.
B.  Discussion
Department Counsel’s appeal involves the Administrative Judge’s conclusions.  
Whether 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)). “[N]o one has a right to a security clearance. . . The general standard is that a
clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of national security.’”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 581, 528 (1988).  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. and ¶ E3.1.33.3. 
Given his findings, the Judge properly concluded that Foreign Influence Disqualifying
Condition (FIDC) 1  is applicable to this case.  That conclusion shifted the burden of persuasion to2
Applicant.  “If there are admitted or proven facts or circumstances that raise security concerns,‘[t]he
applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate
burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.’”  ISCR Case No. 02-28838 at
2 (App. Bd. Jun. 12, 2006); Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  
The Administrative  Judge found that Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition (FIMC) 1  was3
properly raised by the facts.  In evaluating FIMC 1, the Judge observed that “[t]he hostility of Iran
to the United States places a heavy burden on Applicant to demonstrate that the immediate family
members in Iran do not pose a security risk and that he is not in a position to be forced to choose
between loyalty to the United States and his family members.  With its adversarial stance and its
dismal human rights record, it is conceivable that Iran would target any citizen in an attempt to
gather information from the United States.”  Decision at 6.   The Judge concluded that the evidence
4
supplied by Applicant was insufficient to meet his burden of persuasion as to the second clause of
FIMC 1.  Having properly declined to apply the mitigating condition, therefore, the Judge based his
favorable decision upon his whole person analysis.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-12363 at 2 (App.
Bd. July 14, 2006). 
Department Counsel argues that the Judge’s whole person analysis does not sufficiently
address the nature of the Iranian regime and the vulnerability of Applicant’s Iranian relatives to
coercion by that regime, relying upon Directive ¶ E2.2.1.8 (“potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress”) for the proposition that it is the only adjudicative factor fully relevant to
Guideline B cases.  Although a sufficient whole person analysis should take into account a variety
of matters in addition to the this adjudicative factor (see ISCR Case No. 04-00540 at 7 (App. Bd.
Jan. 5, 2007)), we nevertheless find merit in Department Counsel’s argument, considered as a whole.
That is, while the Judge properly noted such favorable facts as the 22 years which Applicant has
lived in the U.S., his U.S. citizenship, and his sincere statement that he would not act contrary to this
country despite whatever pressures Iran exerted on his relatives, the Judge does not explain why
these factors outweigh security concerns raised by the presence of his sister and uncle in Iran.  Of
course, as stated above, Applicant has provided his own assurance that he would not act contrary to
the interests of the U.S.  However, the Board has previously held that such statements are of limited
weight, given their hypothetical nature.  See ISCR Case No. 02-26978 at 5 (App. Bd. Sept. 21,
2005); ISCR Case No. 0-02892 at 4 (App. Bd. June 28, 2004).  In light of this, we conclude that the
Judge abused his discretion in concluding that Applicant had satisfied his burden of persuasion.   
Finally, the Judge concludes by saying “Applicant is a mature individual with a history of
service to this country.  Because of Applicant’s long standing. . . loyalties in the U.S. he can be
expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United States.”  Decision at 7.  The
Judge’s reference to loyalties in the U.S. is problematic given the clear language of the Executive
Order that these proceedings “shall in no sense be a loyalty determination.”  Given the sparse record
in this case it is difficult to justify the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has a history of service to
this country. 
The Board notes that as of the close of the record in this case (December 2005), Applicant
held a current and valid Iranian passport, which he had made no effort to surrender.  The Judge found
for Applicant under Guideline C, which is not an issue on appeal.  The Judge did not discuss what
significance Applicant’s holding of a valid passport should have on his analysis of Applicant as a
whole person.  Such a failure is error.  Similarly, the Judge did not explain in his whole person
analysis how he resolved issues such as the systematic persecution Applicant’s family is already
subject to and Applicant’s acknowledgment of his ties to the family members in Iran.  Cumulatively,
these errors warrant reversal.     
5
 Order
The judgment of the Administrative Judge granting Applicant a clearance is REVERSED.
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: Jean E. Smallin                     
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board