KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant has supported U.S. objectives, sometimes at the expense of his own safety. 
Nevertheless, the Judge reasonably concluded that his extensive family ties to Sudan raised
security concerns which Applicant failed to mitigate.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-06017.a1
DATE: 02/18/2010
DATE: February 18, 2010 
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06017
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 April 9, 2009, 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 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm. 
The Judge found that Applicant is employed by a Defense contractor as a linguist.  He has
been exposed to hostile fire while in the execution of his duties, and he enjoys an excellent
reputation with the U.S. military.  
He was born and raised in Sudan.  He attended a trade school in that country and was
subsequently employed by the Sudanese government.  He immigrated to a Middle Eastern country,
where he worked in the office of a government ministry.  He immigrated to the U.S. in the late
1990s.  
Applicant and his wife, who was born in Sudan, became naturalized U.S. citizens in the mid-
2000s.  Applicant’s parents are citizens and residents of Sudan, as are his ten siblings and half-
siblings.  He speaks to his father a couple of times a year by telephone and sends his parents between
$500 and $1000 a year.  Applicant’s parents-in-law are also citizens and residents of Sudan, as are
her thirteen siblings.  Applicant’s wife contacts one of her siblings by telephone three times a year.
Applicant and his wife have visited Sudan twice in the mid-2000s and “will likely visit Sudan in the
future.”  Decision at 3.
Applicant has applied for a small parcel of land from the Sudanese government which, if it
is awarded, will be worth $3,000-$4,000.  Applicant owns a home in the U.S. with an equity of
$125,000.  His salary is about $145,000.  
Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, so designated by the U.S. Department of State.  The
U.S. has imposed comprehensive economic, trade, and financial sanctions against the country.
Elements of Al-Qa’ida-inspired terrorists, as well as elements of Palestine Islamic Jihad and Hamas,
are located in Sudan.  Its government has a poor human rights record, and the Darfur region has
experienced genocide.  
 After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Applicant does point to an error by the Judge, his finding that Applicant worked
for a government ministry while in the Middle Eastern country.  The record demonstrates that, to the
contrary, Applicant worked for a private company while there.  However, even if the Judge had not
made this error, there is no basis to conclude that he would have decided the case differently.
Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are
sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).
The Judge considered the favorable evidence cited by Applicant, including the extent to
which he has supported the U.S. mission under circumstances that threaten his own safety.  The
Board has long recognized the probative value of such evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25928
at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 9, 2008).  However, the Judge reasonably explained why he concluded that
Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation, citing evidence of Applicant’s
extensive family ties to Sudan, his affection for his family, his visits to Sudan, and the geopolitical
“Each case must be judged on its own merits[.]” Directive ¶ E2.2(b).  The Judge’s decision in this case is1
consistent with Board precedent that close cases must be resolved in favor of the national security.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 01-26893 at 10 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2002).    
circumstances of that country.   After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge1
examined the relevant data and articulated 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 Judge’s adverse decision is
sustainable on this record.  The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it
sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007).  “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). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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