KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Department Counsel demonstrated that the Judge erred in finding that Applicant’s
Lebanese bank account was worth approximately $25,000 based on a dated and illegible bank
book rather than the $100,000 acknowledged by Applicant in his response to the SOR. Applicant
did rely to the File of Relevant Material.  The evidence in mitigation for Applicant’s ties to
Lebanon is limited.  The Judge’s favorable decision is reversed.
CASENO: 07-16064.a1
DATE: 01/12/2009
DATE: January 12, 2009
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-16064
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
See Item II, U.S. Department of State Background Note: Lebanon, Nov. 2007, at 9: “ Lebanon’s foreign policy1
has been heavily influenced by neighboring Syria, which has also long influenced Lebanon’s internal policies as well.”
See also Item III, Travel Warning, Oct. 17, 2007, at 1, to the effect that Hizballah operates in southern Lebanon, in which
there is little or no government control; Item IX, CRS Report for Congress, Oct. 20, 2007, at 13-15, describing Syria’s
history of influencing the internal affairs of Lebanon; Item VI, U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism,
Chapter 6, April 30, 2007, which lists foreign terrorist organizations.  This document, at p. 9, identifies Hizballah as “the
most technically capable terrorist group in the world.”  This document states that Hizballah has strong ties with Iran and
helps Syrian advance its interests in the region.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 14, 2008,  DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On September 23, 2008, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
decision did not take into account significant contrary record evidence and whether the Judge
improperly shifted the burden if persuasion to the Government.  Finding error, we reverse.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was born in Lebanon in
the late 1960s.  Due to his ancestry, however, he did not acquire Lebanese citizenship by virtue of
his birth there.  He immigrated to the U.S. in the mid-1990s and became a U.S. citizen in 2005.  His
wife and sister are both naturalized U.S. citizens.  His mother, brother, and father-in-law are
residents of Lebanon.  Applicant has a savings account in Lebanon worth about $25,000.  
Lebanon is a “nominal democracy” with a poor human rights record.  It has long been subject
to Syrian influence and it is a “permissive environment” for terrorist organizations hostile to Israel.1
B.  Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of fact is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same 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 finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime
3
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give
deference to the Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.
Department Counsel argues that the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s bank account
contained $25,000 in U.S. currency.  The SOR alleged that Applicant’s savings account had a
balance of approximately $100,000.  Applicant admitted this allegation in his response to the SOR
as he had earlier in his reply to interrogatories propounded by DOHA.  However, in this same reply
to interrogatories, Applicant stated that he had a bank statement showing 46,375,800 Lebanese
pounds, which he averred is equivalent to 25,000 U.S. dollars.  This appears to be the basis for the
Judge’s finding.  The Board has examined the record and notes the document in question.  It
demonstrates bank account activity, although Applicant’s name is nowhere on it.  The dates of this
activity appear to have been the late 1990s.  The final entry, however, is poorly reproduced and
impossible to read with accuracy.  It appears to show a final balance somewhat in excess of 46
million pounds.  The date of this final balance is totally illegible.  The Board concludes that the bank
statement is old, and does not contradict the greater amount listed in the SOR and in Applicant’s
responses.  Department Counsel has demonstrated error on this point.     
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Ultimate Conclusions
 A 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)).  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the 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. 
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong
presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the Government presentsth
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those
concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and
whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the
particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light
of the record evidence as a whole.”  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03635 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20,
2006).
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board
will review the Judge's decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails
to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of
judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision
that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere
See Executive Order 13338, May 11, 2004, declaring a national emergency to address geopolitical challenges2
posed by Syria, including its interference in Lebanon.  See also Item IV, U.S. Department of State Country Reports on
Terrorism, Chapter 2, April 30, 2007, at 9, concerning, inter alia, assassinations in Lebanon aimed at intimidating those
who oppose Syrian interference;  Item V, U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism, Chapter 3, April 30,
2007, at 3, concerning, inter alia, Syrian support for Hizballah and for Palestinian terrorist groups; Item VII, U.S.
Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, March 11, 2008, at 5, to the effect that Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon were “subject to arrest, detention, and harassment by state security forces and rival Palestinian
factions.”      
Directive ¶ E2.7)b): “connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential3
conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s
desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information[.]”  
4
difference of opinion.  In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law,
the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the
Directive, or other applicable federal law.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2,
2006)
In Applicant’s case, the Judge stated that the Government had not established “that there was
a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion because
of Applicant’s limited family contacts in Lebanon.”  Decision at 4.  He appears to have concluded,
therefore, that the Government had not presented substantial evidence of Guideline B security
concerns.  Department Counsel argues persuasively that the Judge’s conclusion in this regard is
error.  The Board notes the Judge’s findings that Applicant’s mother, brother, and father-in-law
reside in Lebanon, a country in which terrorists operate, in which Syria exerts considerable influence,
and which has a problematic human rights record.   Applicant’s circumstances as a whole are2
sufficient to raise security concerns under Guideline B, in that they pose a foreseeable risk that
Applicant could experience a conflict of interest between his obligations to the U.S. and his
obligations to his relatives in Lebanon.   See ISCR Case No. 05-11292 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2007)3
(“The presence of immediate family members in a country which a hostile power like Syria is
attempting to destabilize, and in which terrorist groups operate with a substantial degree of
autonomy, poses a real concern in the adjudication of applicant’s request for a security clearance.”)
Therefore, the Judge should have evaluated the case in light of Applicant’ burden of persuasion as
to mitigation.  The Board notes that Applicant chose to have the case decided upon the written
record, with the  result that his credibility could not be evaluated in the context of a hearing.  See
ISCR Case No. 08-00899 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 2008).  Applicant did not to reply to the
Government’s File of Relevant Material; nor did he submit a reply brief on appeal.   Therefore, his
case for mitigation is limited and consists only of his responses to the SOR and to the DOHA
interrogatories, in which he lists his family members in Lebanon, his bank account there, and his
reasons for leaving Lebanon to live in the U.S.  Examining the record as a whole, the Board is not
able to conclude that content of these documents is sufficient to mitigate the security concerns in his
case, in light of the standard set forth in Egan.  Considering the security concerns, and the paucity
of record evidence as to mitigation, the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is not
sustainable.  
5
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision 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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board