KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline B
DIGEST: Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had failed to demonstrate diligence in paying off
delinquent debts is sustainable.  Applicant’s Egyptian relatives raise security concerns that
Applicant failed to mitigate.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-06925.a1
DATE: 08/24/2010
DATE: August 24, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06925
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 18, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 28, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 the Judge’s decision under
Guideline F was contrary to the weight of the record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his
“[I]n-laws represent a class of persons who are contemplated by the Directive as presenting a potential security1
risk . . . [T]here is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family
members of the person’s spouse.”  ISCR Case No. 03-26176 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 14, 2005).
application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis
was in error.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a linguist working for
a Defense contractor.  She was born, raised, and educated in Egypt.  
Applicant first traveled to the U.S. in the late 1970s.  She and her husband immigrated to this
country in the 1980s and became U.S. citizens in the early 1990s.  She has three siblings, two of
whom are citizens and residents of the U.S. and one of whom is a citizen and resident of Egypt.  She
contacts her Egyptian sibling approximately twice a month.  
Applicant also has in-laws who are citizens and residents of Egypt.  In addition, her husband
has an uncle who, in his late teens, had belonged to a terrorist organization.  He is now a citizen and
resident of the U.S. and teaches at a U.S. university.  Before becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant’s
husband was an official in an Egyptian governmental organization.  
Applicant and her siblings inherited a house and land in Egypt.  Applicant intends to
renounce her interest in the property.  She has traveled to Egypt in order to visit relatives and to
sightsee.  
Applicant has delinquent debts owed to a department store and to a utility company.
Although she claims to have disputed these debts, she provided no corroboration.
Egypt has an excellent relationship with the U.S. and receives substantial U.S. foreign aid.
However, terrorist groups carry out attacks in Egypt, targeting U.S. interests.  “Terrorist groups
conduct intelligence activities as effectively as state intelligence services.”  Decision at 8.
Applicant requests that the Board exercise de novo review over her appeal. However, the
Board does not have authority to review a case de novo.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  See also ISCR
Case No. 08-10204 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010).  
In evaluating the Guideline F security concerns, the Judge noted that Applicant had paid off
a number of her debts or had reasonably disputed others.  However, as to the remaining ones cited
in the SOR, his decision that she had failed to show diligence in attempting to resolve them is
supportable.  Concerning Guideline B, the extent of Applicant’s foreign relatives, to include in-
laws,  supports the Judge’s adverse conclusion.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge1
weighed the record evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-
21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2009).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Judge 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 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: 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