KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Applicant was born and raised in Iran.  She met her husband in Iran.  Her parents and
one sibling are citizens and residents of Iran.  She has traveled to Iran several times in this decade
and intends to travel there in the future.  The Judge has drawn a rational connection between the
facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-14435.a1
DATE: 10/24/2008
DATE: October 24, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-14435
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline C is not at issue in this appeal.  1
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 12, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 24, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s application of the
pertinent mitigating conditions was error.   Finding no error, we affirm.1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a software engineer for
a defense contractor.  Born and raised in Iran, she attended college there, graduating in the 1990s.
She met her husband in Iran.  He was born in the U.S. of Iranian parents.  Applicant, her husband,
and his parents live in the U.S.  Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the 2000s.  Her
parents and her one sibling are citizens and residents of Iran.  Her parents have acquired resident
alien status and intend to immigrate to the U.S. once they wind up their personal affairs.  Applicant
speaks with her parents and her sister by telephone twice a week or more.  
Applicant visited Iran several times during the 2000s.  She has used an Iranian passport for
some of the trips.  She intends to visit Iran in the future, to attend her sister’s wedding.  She will also
visit Iran should her family there experience health problems, etc.  Neither she nor her husband own
property in Iran.  
Iran is “the most active state sponsor of terrorism.”  Decision at 3.  It is attempting to obtain
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  It supports violent opposition to the
Middle East peace process and has a “dismal human rights record.”  Id.  American citizens visiting
Iran are subject to harassment.  “Americans of Iranian origin should consider the risk of being
targeted by authorities before planning travel” there.  
In the Analysis section of his decision, the Judge stated that Applicant’s case raised security
concerns under Guideline B.  In evaluating possible mitigating conditions, the Judge noted
Applicant’s “very strong feelings of attachment . . . for her parents and sister, the comparatively short
time she has been a U.S. citizen and employed by [a] defense contractor, her expressed intent to
return to Iran for her sister’s wedding and any other family matters that might arise, and the nature
of the Iranian Government and its relationship with the U.S.”  Id. at 5-6.  He concluded that
Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case.  
  In light of the record as a whole, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the
facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at
2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm
3
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 7.  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)  (“The general standard
is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national
security’”).  Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is not arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law.     
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett        
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple   
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board