KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E; Guideline B
DIGEST: Security concerns are not limited to influence exercised by foreign governments.  The
Judge’s failure to make findings concerning the geopolitical situation in Afghanistan impairs his
analysis both of Guideline B and the whole person.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 04-02630.a1
DATE: 05/23/2007
DATE: May 23, 2007
In Re:
---------
SSN: ---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-02630
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 21, 2005,  DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive
“A determination that the immediate family member(s) . . . in question are not agents of a foreign power or in1
a 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.
Department Counsel does not challenge the Judge’s favorable decision under Guidelines F and E.  Therefore,2
they are not at issue in this case.
Applicant Exhibit C includes an evaluation of Applicant’s duty performance.  Written on stationary bearing3
the letterhead of Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan, it states in part that Applicant is a “critical link” between
the U.S. and the Afghan people.  “Of special note, his mastery of five languages and cultural expertise has earned him
the respect and trust of our Deputy Commanding General. [Applicant] is often called upon to translate and verify
strategic-level documents for the Commander.”  Another document contained in this exhibit states that Applicant has
assisted in “several joint planning groups to solve a myriad of problems surfacing in Afghanistan . . . [S]everal important
[Afghan officials] will speak only through Applicant.”    
2
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 23, 2006,
after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola  granted Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his
application of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition (FIMC) 1;  and whether the Judge’s whole1
person analysis was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.   Finding error, we remand the case2
to the Judge.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has two brothers who are
citizens and residents of Afghanistan.  Both are carpenters.  They have no connection with the
Afghan government.
Applicant has worked for the Afghan government, without pay, from March to July of 2004.
He worked for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan from December 2004 until June 2005.  The “Deputy
Commanding General” of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan thinks most highly of Applicant, and other
U.S. Army officers echo the general’s comments.   3
B.  Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  Directive
¶  E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s findings
from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S.
607, 620-21 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give deference to the
Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive  ¶  E3.1.32.1. 
3
In his discussion of the first asserted error, Department Counsel noted that the Judge’s
findings include nothing about the nature of the Afghan government or the nature of threats posed
by groups such as terrorists and para-military organizations operating within Afghanistan.
Department Counsel notes that the Judge’s failure to address the geopolitical conditions in
Afghanistan render his decision arbitrary and capricious.  Security concerns under Guideline B are
not limited to influence exercised by foreign governments.  Such concerns can arise from the
operation of non-governmental groups, such as terrorist organizations, within a foreign country.  See
ISCR Case No. 03-22643 at 8 (App. Bd. June 24, 2005)(“The Board has rejected the contention that
there is no rational connection between terrorism and threats to the security of classified U.S.
information.”) See also ISCR Case No. 02-29403 at 9 (App. Bd. Dec. 14, 2004).   
In this case, the Judge’s failure to make findings concerning the geopolitical situation within
Afghanistan impairs his analysis, both of Guideline B and of the whole person.  Therefore, we
remand the case to the Judge for a new opinion, under Guideline B and the whole person.  The new
opinion should include a more detailed whole person analysis, which takes into account the dangers
existing in Afghanistan insofar as they have a bearing on the potential for coercion.  Also, as
appropriate, it should detail and explain Applicant’s pertinent qualities, characteristics, and
circumstances which are the basis for the Judge’s ultimate decision.  
Order
The Judge’s decision granting Applicant a clearance is REMANDED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4