KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Applicant’s father is a retired General resident in Lebanon, a country in which a
terrorist organization (Hezbollah) operates and holds seats in the national assembly. Lebanon is
heavily influenced by Syria .  Favorable decision reversed.  
CASENO: 08-02715.a1
DATE: 03/09/2010
DATE: March 9, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-02715
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Robert R. Bohn, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 6, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline C are not at issue in this appeal.1
2
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On November 24, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson granted Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
decision under Guideline B is erroneous.   Finding error, we reverse.1
Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was born in the U.S. to
Lebanese parents, thereby acquiring Lebanese citizenship.  Shortly after her birth, her family moved
to Lebanon, where Applicant grew up.  She returned to the U.S. in the mid-2000s to attend college
and has lived in this country ever since.  
Applicant’s father is a citizen and resident of Lebanon.  He is a retired general in the
Lebanese military, living on a pension.  He attends luncheons with other retired generals and has an
acquaintance who is highly placed in the Lebanese government.  Applicant’s father holds resident
alien status in the U.S. and is seeking to become a citizen.  When he is not visiting in this country,
Applicant speaks with him approximately once every other week by telephone.  Applicant has a
sister who is a citizen of Lebanon residing in the U.S.  Her brother is a dual citizen of Lebanon and
the U.S., who also resides in the U.S.  
Lebanese policy is heavily influenced by Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism.
Lebanese instability enables foreign terrorist organizations to operate within its borders.  The most
prominent such organization is Hezbollah, which the U.S. has designated as a “Foreign Terrorist
Organization.”  The Lebanese government recognizes Hezbollah as a legitimate political party.  It
maintains offices in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon and is closely allied with Iran.  Hezbollah
attempts to obtain U.S. technology.   
Discussion
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.
Directive ¶ 8(a): “the nature of the relationships with the foreign persons, the country in which these persons2
are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will
be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or
government and the interests of the U.S[.]”  
Directive ¶ 8(c): “contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little3
likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation[.]”
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
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).
Department Counsel argues on appeal that the Judge erred in her application of two Foreign
Influence Mitigating Conditions (FIMC), 8(a)  and 8(c).   The essence of Department Counsel’s2 3
argument is that Applicant’s relationship with her father raises security concerns which Applicant’s
evidence failed to mitigate.  This argument is persuasive.  
The Board notes the Judge’s findings that Applicant’s father is a retired general; that he is
a citizen and resident of Lebanon; that he associates frequently with other retired officers, including
a high-ranking official in the Lebanese government; that Applicant speaks with her father by
telephone on a bi-weekly basis; that Lebanese policy is heavily influenced by Syria, which is a state
sponsor of terrorism; that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, operates within Lebanon with
considerable freedom; and that Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanese National Assembly.  We also
note record evidence that Hezbollah is closely allied with Iran, taking its ideological inspiration from
the Iranian revolution.  U.S. State Department Country Reports on Terrorism, April 30, 2009, at 3.
Without suggesting that Applicant’s father has engaged in improper activity, it is nevertheless
4
foreseeable that his presence in Lebanon could be a means through which Applicant could be
coerced into compromising classified activity.  Applicant’s evidence does not demonstrate that her
ties to the U.S. so outweigh her ties to her father that she would not likely be placed in a position of
choosing U.S. interests over his.  See ISCR Case No. 05-11292 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2007) (“The
presence of immediate family members in a country which a hostile foreign 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 [an applicant’s] request for a security
clearance”).  
By the same token, the evidence does not support a conclusion that Applicant’s
communications with her father are casual and infrequent.  Indeed, there is a rebuttable presumption
that communications with close family members are not causal by nature.  See ISCR Case No. 07-
13696 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 9, 2009).  The Judge’s findings and the record evidence concerning
Applicant’s communications with her father are not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  In light of
the above, we conclude that the Judge’s favorable decision is not sustainable on this record, viewed
in light of the Egan standard.
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is REVERSED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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