1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00743
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: B. Daniel Lynch, Esquire
August 24, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 21, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline B  for
Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG)
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On September 16, 2009, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. I received the case assignment on
December 1, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 2, 2010, and I convened
the hearing as scheduled on March 17, 2010. The Government offered Exhibits 1
through 5, which were received and admitted without objection after Exhibit 1 was
redacted. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A and B, at the
time of hearing, which were also admitted without objection. Seven additional witnesses
also testified on Applicant’s behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on
2
March 25, 2010. I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until April 7,
2010, to submit additional documents, and Department Counsel had until April 14,
2010, to indicate whether or not he had any objections to the documents that Applicant
submitted. Applicant timely submitted one additional document, which has been
identified and entered into evidence as Exhibit C. Based upon a review of the case file,
pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant and the other witnesses, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of certain facts
relating to the country of Jordan. The request and the attached documents were
admitted into evidence as Exhibit 5 . The facts administratively noticed are set out in the
Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted that all of the SOR allegations 1.a. through 1.g.,
are correct. The admitted allegations are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant and his
father, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 51 years old. He has been married since 1991. His wife was born in
Kuwait as a Jordanian, and she became a United States citizen in 1997. Applicant and
his wife have four children, and they are all United States born citizens.  Applicant is
employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in
connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Applicant was born in 1958 in the West Bank, which at that time was under the
control of Jordan. It is currently under Israel’s control. He lived there until approximately
1977. He moved to Kuwait for a brief period, and then he moved to England, where he
lived from 1977 to 1979. He attended college in England. In 1979 and 1980, he
attended an American college in Spain. In 1981, he emigrated to the United States to
attend college here, and he has lived in the United States since then. In 1989, he
received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics, and in 1991 he became a United
States citizen. He has been employed for several different companies, but since 1994,
he has worked as a technician at an Air Force base for different contractors, within the
same communications squadron. He estimated his assets in the United States at
$125,000.
3
(Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
The SOR lists seven allegations, regarding Foreign Influence, under Adjudicative
Guideline B, which will be reviewed in the same order as they were listed on the SOR.
As stated above, Applicant has admitted all of the allegations listed:
 
1.a. Applicant's mother is a citizen of Jordan and resident of Israel. Applicant is
close to his mother and has visited her on several occasions, as reviewed in 1.g.,
below. His last visit was to see her as she is extremely ill, on 24 hour oxygen support.
His mother once came to visit Applicant in the United States, but then she returned to
Israel. (Tr at 138.)
1.b. Applicant has a brother, who is a citizen and resident of Jordan. Applicant
testified that he calls his siblings “occasionally during holidays for a very short time,
maybe two or three minutes at most.” (Tr at 117.) None of his siblings is currently
employed by any government entity or has been in the past. (Tr at 138.) None of his
siblings has ever come to visit him in the United States. 
1.c. Applicant has a brother, who is a citizen of Jordan and resident of United
Arab Emirates. As stated above, none of Applicant’s siblings is currently employed by
any government entity or has been in the past. (Tr at 138.) 
1.d. Applicant has two other brothers, who are citizens of Jordan and residents of
Israel. Again, none of Applicant’s siblings is currently employed by any government
entity or has been in the past. (Tr at 138.) 
1.e. Applicant has five sisters, who are citizens of Jordan and residents of Israel.
At the hearing, Applicant testified that one of his sisters has moved to Canada, but the
others still reside in Israel. (Tr at 124.) Again, none of Applicant’s siblings is currently
employed by any government entity or has been in the past. (Tr at 138.) 
1.f. Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Jordan. Applicant has
very little contact with her. 
1.g. Applicant has traveled to Jordan and/or Israel in at least 1994, 1997, 1999,
and 2008. All of his trips were to visit his mother, and they each were between three
and six weeks in duration. (Tr at 105-106.) He has always used his United States
passport when visiting any other country. (Tr at 111.) Applicant had a Jordanian
passport, but he sent it to his employer’s security officer, who tore it and rendered it
unusable. Applicant submitted a letter from his security officer confirming this. (Exhibit
4.) 
Applicant’s mother has owned some property in Israel, but Applicant indicated
that he has renounced any claim to it, and it has been divided among his siblings. He
has no interest in any property outside of the United States. (Tr at 107-110.)
4
At the hearing, Applicant indicated he would be willing to renounce his Jordanian
citizenship, and the record was left open to allow Applicant the opportunity to renounce
his Jordanian citizenship. Applicant, through his counsel, submitted a post hearing
document, which included the instructions for a Jordanian citizen to renounce his
citizenship. (Exhibit C.)  Applicant’s attorney indicated that Applicant was not able to
renounce his citizenship because he did not meet certain criteria. These included the
fact that Applicant did not have a passport to return, because the Security Officer had
destroyed it, Applicant has never had a family identification card, and Applicant never
served in the Jordanian military, nor could he prove he was unavailable for military
service during the times he was eligible for military service. So while Applicant had the
will to renounce his Jordanian citizenship, he was unable to actually do it. 
 Mitigation
As stated above, seven witnesses testified on Applicant’s behalf. They all were
extremely laudatory in describing Applicant. He was described as a “go to guy with good
moral character” who is “trustworthy and with good moral character.” (Tr at 36-37.)
Among the other positive terms used to describe Applicant were “very dependable, very
honest, and a very upstanding character.” (Tr at 61-63.)
Applicant submitted 19 very positive character letters in Exhibit A, from
individuals who know and have known Applicant in a variety of employment situations.
He was described as a “sincere and hard working professional whose character and
ethical standards are without peer.” Another letter stated that Applicant “has strong
family values, is very devout, honest, law abiding, trustworthy, well-educated, reliable,
quiet & non aggressive.”
Current Status of Jordan
I take administrative notice of the following facts regarding Jordan. Jordan is a
small country located in the Middle East with a constitutional monarchy. Jordan is ruled
by King Abdullah II. It has followed a pro-western foreign policy and has had close
relations with the United States for six decades. Despite Jordan’s aggressive pursuit of
terrorists, the threat of terrorism remains high in Jordan. Terrorist organizations
currently target the United States for intelligence collection through human espionage
and by other means. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
5
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding Foreign Influence: 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the
individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be
manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or
government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to
pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Adjudication under this
6
Guideline can and should consider the identity of the foreign country in
which the foreign contact or financial interest is located, including, but not
limited to, such considerations as whether the foreign country is known to
target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is
associated with a risk of terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Those that could be applicable in this case include the following: AG ¶ 7
(a) “contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or
other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a
heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or
coercion.” Applicant’s relatives, who are citizens and residents of Jordan or Israel, and
who continue to have, in the case of his mother, a very close bond to Applicant, make
AG ¶ 7(a) a concern to the Government. I find that AG ¶ 7(b) “connections to a foreign
person, group government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between
the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information  . . . and the individual’s desire
to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information” is also
applicable in this case. 
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I find that AG ¶
8(b) “there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or
obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the
individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that
the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S.
interest,” is applicable to this Applicant and controlling for the following reasons:  
Applicant is a U.S. citizen, who has lived in the U.S. since 1981 and been a
United States citizen since 1991. Appellant’s wife has been a U.S. citizen since 1997.
The four children of Applicant and his wife are solely U.S. citizens and residents.
Applicant never served in the military of a foreign Government, and he has only been
employed in the United States. All of Applicant’s assets are in the United States. Finally,
Applicant had seven impressive individuals testify on his behalf as to his honesty and
trustworthiness. I therefore conclude Guideline B for Applicant.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
7
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Under AG ¶ 2 (c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case under Guideline B. Based on all of
the reasons cited above as to why the Mitigating Condition applies, and the very
laudatory descriptions of Applicant from the witnesses at the hearing and the writers of
the submitted letters, I find that the record evidence leaves me with no significant
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance
under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has
mitigated the security concerns. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge