KEYWORD: Foreign Influence; Outside Activities
DIGEST: Applicant’s numerous immediate family members who are citizens and residents of
Morocco, and his extensive Moroccan property interests generate a security risk which he failed to
mitigate. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-19464.h1
DATE: 09/27/2007
DATE: September 27, 2007
In re:
-------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19464
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s numerous immediate family members who are citizens and residents of Morocco,
and his extensive Moroccan property interests generate a security risk which he failed to mitigate.
Clearance is denied.
Exhibit I, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Background Note: Morocco, dated1
February 2007, at 5-8.
Exhibit II, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Consular Information Sheet on Morocco,2
dated February 21, 200, at 1-2.
Id. at 3.3
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated
February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended. He
answered the SOR on June 14, 2007, admitting the allegations and electing to have the case decided
on the written record.
Department Counsel mailed the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) to Applicant
on July 24, 2007. He received it on July 31, 2007. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He neither objected to any
of the FORM submissions, nor filed any additional evidence to be considered. The case was assigned
to me on September 7, 2007 requesting an administrative determination.
RULINGS OF EVIDENCE
At the Government’s request, I took administrative notice of the following facts:
1. Morocco is a moderate, stable, democratizing nation with whom the United States enjoys
strong ties and good relations.1
2. Several terrorist attacks have occurred in Morocco over the past five years. Some targeted
U.S. interests. The potential for terrorist violence against American interests and citizens
remains high.2
3. Morocco has a poor human rights record. Problems include arbitrary arrest and detention.
It sometimes places foreign citizens under surveillance.3
The FORM contains seven exhibits, in addition to four source documents for the facts I
administratively noted. It also contained an unmarked documented entitled “Personal Subject
Interview.” It appears to be part of a report of investigation, covering the period May 22, 2006
through June 5, 2006, is unsigned, and is not referenced elsewhere in the FORM. I did not consider
it.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Exhibit 4 at 5.4
Answer at 1.5
Exhibit 6 at 2.6
Answer at 2.7
Exhibit 6 at 3.8
Id.9
Id.10
Id. at 4. The record is unclear with respect to whether this is net income or gross income.11
3
The SOR admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. In addition, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 44-year-old married man. Although he has children, the number is unknown
from the record. He has a master’s degree in computer science, earned from an American university
in 1991. 
Applicant is originally from Morocco. He emigrated to the United States approximately 18
years ago, and became a naturalized citizen in 2004.  His mother, brother, and sisters are Moroccan4
citizens and residents.  His father is deceased. His parent-in-laws, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law5
are Moroccan citizens and residents. He has traveled to Morocco eight times since June 2002 to visit
them.
Applicant owns property valued at approximately $400,000 in Morocco. He inherited it from
his father after his death in 2002.  He maintains a savings account in a Moroccan bank with an6
approximate $200,000 balance, and a checking account in a Moroccan bank with an approximate
$1,200 balance.  He also has approximately $3,000 in a checking account in France.7
Applicant is the majority owner of an information technology company. His brother-in-law
owns a company in Morocco that contracts with several Moroccan government agencies.8
Applicant’s company has a business relationship with his brother-in-law’s company. Specifically,
the brother-in-law’s company will enter into a contract with a Moroccan government agency to
supply information technology hardware, and it will then purchase the hardware from various
suppliers including Applicant’s company.  Applicant’s brother-in-law’s company will only purchase9
the hardware from his company if he can provide it at a competitive price. Otherwise, the company
uses other suppliers.  Applicant’s company derives less than 10 percent of its income from its10
business relationship with  his brother-in-law’s company.  Neither Applicant nor his brother-in-law11
has any ownership interest in the other’s respective companies.
Applicant’s company also has contracts with foreign companies in Germany and Canada. It
is unclear from the record whether Applicant’s company constitutes his principal employment, or
whether he needs a clearance in his capacity as its majority stakeholder.
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.12
4
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines, as revised December 29, 2005, and implemented September 1,
2006, apply to the analysis of this case. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, they are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny or revoke
an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions) and those
that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access to classified
information (mitigating conditions).
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the
nature and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the age of the
applicant; (5) the extent to which the participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
The following adjudicative guidelines are raised:
Guideline B - Financial Influence: Foreign contacts and interests may be a security
concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be
manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government
in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any
foreign interest.
Guideline L - Outside Activities: Involvement in certain types of outside employment or
activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict of interest with an individual’s
security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure
of classified information.
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions12
that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that have
been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a13
citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement,
manipulation, pressure, or coercion.
A substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-14
operated business, which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation.
The value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial or property interests is such that [it] is unlikely15
to result in a conflict and could not be used effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.
5
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the government, and has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline B
Several of Applicant’s family members are citizens and residents of Morocco, where a
heightened risk of exploitation exists because of its questionable human rights record and recent
history of terrorist activity. He has traveled there several times over the past five years to visit them,
and has a business relationship with one of them, his brother-in-law. Applicant’s contacts with these
family members in conjunction with Morocco’s political characteristics generate a security concern
under Foreign Influence Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 7 (a).13
Under Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 8 (a), applicants with relatives or
acquaintances in foreign countries where a heightened risk of exploitation exists can mitigate the
security risk if they can demonstrate that the nature of their relationships, or the positions or
activities of those relatives or acquaintances are such that it is unlikely that any attempted
exploitation would occur. Here, Applicant provided no such information. Absent any of this
information to consider, I cannot apply FC MC 8 (a).
Applicant’s business relationship with his brother-in-law, his substantial Moroccan bank
accounts, and his Moroccan property interests trigger the application of FC DC 7(e).  He has no14
financial interest in his brother-in-law’s company, nor does his brother-in-law have any financial
interest in his company. Although Applicant’s company sometimes sells supplies to his brother-in-
law’s company that are ultimately used to fulfill the execution of several of his brother-in-law’s
contracts with Moroccan government agencies, he does not have any direct, contractual relationship
with the Moroccan government. He is one of a number of suppliers with whom his brother-in-law’s
company contracts. Applicant’s company’s business relationship with his brother-in-law’s company
constitutes less than 10 percent of Applicant’s company’s income. FC MC 8 (f) applies to
Applicant’s business relationship with his brother-in-law.15
Conversely, FC MC 8 (f) does not apply to Applicant’s Moroccan bank accounts and the
property he inherited from his father. They total in excess of $600,000 USD. He offered no
description of the property, nor any information about the bank accounts for me to consider.
Any . . . service, whether compensated or volunteer, with any foreign national, organization, or other entity.16
6
The government submitted no evidence that Applicant’s French checking account and his
German and Canadian contracts create a heightened risk of exploitation. Consequently, I conclude
that they generate no foreign influence security concerns.
Guideline L
Applicant’s business relationship with his brother-in-law’s company raises the issue of
whether Outside Activities Disqualifying Condition (OA DC) 37(a)(2) applies.  There is no record16
evidence of Applicant’s job duties at his principal place of employment. Therefore, I cannot
conclude that Applicant’s business relationship with his brother-in-law poses a conflict of interest
with his primary employment.  Moreover, as discussed above, Applicant’s business relationship with
his brother-in-law accounts for less than 10 percent of his company’s income. There are no Guideline
L security concerns.
Whole Person Concept
Having admitted all of the allegations in the SOR regarding his relatives, Applicant had the
burden of proving they do not create a security risk. He provided little evidence for me to evaluate
in his Answer, and did not respond to the FORM, despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Consequently, he failed to meet his burden, and I conclude that his foreign relatives generate an
unacceptable security concern. Clearance is denied.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m-1.n: For Applicant
Paragraph 2 - Guideline L: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
DECISION
7
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge