KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Guideline B cases should be resolved to the greatest extent possible in the context of
the current political conditions in the country at issue.  The Judge’s failure to make any factual
findings about the situation in Nigeria vitiates the credibility of her decision.  Favorable decision
remanded.
CASENO: 06-17001.a1
DATE: 07/24/2007
DATE: July 24, 2007
In Re:
-------
SSN: -----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17001
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 August 3, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline C is not at issue in this appeal. 1
Directive ¶ E2.A2.1.3.1: “A determination that the immediate family member(s) . . . in question are not agents2
of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by the foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose
between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States ...”
2
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B
(Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 29, 2006, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  1
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s application
of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition (FIMC) 1  is not supported by record evidence and2
therefore arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; and whether the Judge’s whole person analysis
is not supported by record evidence and therefore arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding
error, we remand the case to the Judge.
Department Counsel implicitly challenges the sufficiency of the Judge’s findings in his
argument that the Judge’s failure to make findings of fact concerning the geopolitical situation in
Nigeria impairs her analysis of FIMC 1 as well as of the whole person.  Department Counsel
contends that such record evidence as “the deteriorating security situation in Nigeria,” human rights
abuses, and government corruption raise security concerns which the Judge’s decision fails
adequately to address.  
Department Counsel’s argument is persuasive.  “Guideline B cases should be made to the
greatest extent possible in the context of current political conditions in the country at issue.”  ISCR
Case No. 05-11292 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2007).  The Judge’s failure to make any factual finding
at all about the political situation in Nigeria vitiates the credibility of her favorable decision.
Therefore, we remand the case to the Judge for a new opinion.  The new opinion should include a
more detailed analysis under both Guideline B and the “whole person,” which explicitly takes into
account the situation existing in Nigeria insofar as it has a bearing on Applicant’s eligibility to hold
a clearance.  Further, it should, as appropriate, detail and explain Applicant’s pertinent qualities,
characteristics, and circumstances which are the basis for the Judge’s ultimate decision.  The other
issues raised on appeal are not ripe for consideration.  
3
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