KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Record evidence of Applicant’s extensive family contacts in Israel, her dual
nationality, and her possession of an Israeli passport support the Judge’s conclusion that she had
not mitigated the security concerns in her case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-05034.a1
DATE: 05/21/2009
DATE: May 21, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-05034
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 13, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and
Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 10, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant is a software engineer
for a defense contractor.  Applicant became a citizen of Israel, having moved there with her parents
at a young age.  She was educated in Israel and moved to the U.S. in the late 1970s, becoming a
naturalized U.S. citizen in the mid-1980s.  She is a dual national and is unwilling to renounce her
Israeli citizenship, although she stated that she would renounce her Israeli passport if needed for her
employment.  There is no evidence that this has been done.  She has five siblings who are citizens
and residents of Israel.  She maintains contact with four of them.  Three of her siblings are
employees of the Israeli government, including one who works for the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
 
In support of her appeal Applicant has submitted new matters (primarily her statement that
she has now surrendered her passport), not contained in the record.  The Board cannot consider this
new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the
Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).  After reviewing
the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a
satisfactory explanation for his 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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 10.  See also
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’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board