KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s evidence not sufficient to mitigate Guideline B security concerns arising
from his connections to Nigeria.  In light of this holding, the Government’s cross-appeal is moot. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-10635.a1
DATE: 02/17/2009
DATE: February 17, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-10635
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 16, 2008,  DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference),
Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On November 12, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline C is not at issue in this appeal.  1
Government Exhibit 2, Security Clearance Application, at 28-29, lists three individuals identified as2
stepbrothers of Applicant, who are citizens of Nigeria.
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.  Department Counsel filed a timely cross-appeal pursuant to Directive ¶ E3.1.28.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s factual
findings were supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision under Guideline B was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Department
Counsel raised the following issue on cross-appeal: whether the Judge erred in his application of the
Guideline F mitigating conditions.   Finding no harmful error, we affirm.1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was born in Nigeria,
immigrating to the U.S. in the late 1980s.  He became a U.S. citizen in the early 2000s.  He held a
Nigerian passport, issued after he became a U.S. citizen, but has since turned it over to the facility
security officer.  
Applicant’s wife is a citizen of Nigeria.  Born there in the early 1960s, she received an
advanced degree from a U.S. university.  She applied for U.S. citizenship one day before the hearing
in Applicant’s case.  Applicant’s father and stepmother are resident citizens of Nigeria.  Applicant
is close to his father, speaking to him by phone twice a month.  His father owns some real estate in
Nigeria, which Applicant “has an option to inherit.”  Decision at 4.  Applicant also has a brother,
who is a resident and citizen of Nigeria, a stepbrother who is a Nigerian citizen but a resident alien
of the U.S.,  and two sisters, who are naturalized U.S. citizens.  His in-laws are also residents and2
citizens of Nigeria.  Applicant’s wife communicates with them more frequently than Applicant does
with his father.  Applicant traveled to Nigeria five or six times in the six years preceding the close
of the record.  
Nigeria has a poor human rights record.  Many of its regions are subject to lawlessness,
characterized by armed conflict among various religious, political, and ethnic factions.  In the Niger
Delta region, for example, kidnaping and other disruptions pose a danger to U.S. citizens traveling
there.
Applicant has experienced some financial difficulties since 2002.  He was unemployed from
May 2002 until June 2004, during which time he relied for financial support upon a severance
package from his job, upon his savings, upon unemployment compensation, and upon money
received from his church.  He filed twice for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, but the petitions
were dismissed because Applicant could not make the payments.
The SOR lists several delinquent debts for Applicant.  The Judge concluded, after comparing
the SOR with evidence supplied by both the Government and by Applicant, that only two were
actually delinquent at the close of the record: a $15,010.00 judgement in favor of a creditor and a
credit card debt of $8,927.00.  The remaining debts were either paid, disputed, and/or dropped from
Applicant’s credit report.  
Applicant challenged some of the Judge’s findings of fact, for example a statement that
Applicant’s wife did not apply for U.S. citizenship at her first opportunity due to lack of interest.
Decision at 3.  The Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are
supported by substantial record evidence.  See  Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “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.”) Even if the Judge’s findings contain error,  such error
is harmless in that it would not change the outcome of the case.  See ISCR Case No. 06-23112 at 2
(App. Bd. Dec. 31, 2007).  The Judge concluded that the nature and extent of Applicant’s family
connections to Nigeria raised security concerns under Guideline B.  In evaluating Applicant’s case
for mitigation, he paid attention to the closeness of Applicant’s relations with Nigerian family
members, including his spouse; the frequency of his contact with those living in Nigeria; and the
possibility that Applicant could inherit property in Nigeria.  Although the Judge gave due
consideration to the matters presented by Applicant, including evidence as to the high quality of his
work performance and his character, his conclusion that  “it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable.  Decision at 13.  See
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).  In light of
this conclusion, the Board need not address the issue raised by the Government on cross-appeal.  
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.  
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