KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: To the extent the Department Counsel’s arguments rely on case law interpreting
language from adjudicative guidelines which are no longer in effect, those arguments are not
persuasive.  The Judge did not confine his consideration to coercive means of influence. 
Favorable decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-15696.a1 
DATE: 02/20/2009
DATE: February 20, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-15696
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
2
clearance.  On March 16, 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 hearing.  On November 5, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason
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 under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
 
To the extent Department Counsel’s arguments on appeal rely on case law interpreting
language from adjudicative guidelines which are no longer in effect, those arguments are not
persuasive.  (For additional discussion on this point see ISCR 06-17838 at p. 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 28,
2008).
Department Counsel is correct that the Government’s security concerns are broader than the
limited possibility of the use of coercive means of influence.  However, a review of the Judge’s
decision leads the Board to conclude that the Judge did not confine his consideration to coercive
means of influence.   The Judge’s decision contains a satisfactory explanation for [his] conclusions,
including a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate decision, both as to the
application of the mitigating conditions and the whole-person analysis.  See ISCR Case No. 03-
22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s application
of Foreign Influence Mitigating Conditions 8(a) and 8(b) and his whole person analysis of
Applicant’s case are sustainable.  “The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find
it sustainable.”  ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. November 2, 2007).
   
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                    
3
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody                       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board