KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s findings are consistent with Applicant’s admissions in response to the
SOR.
CASENO: 09-03616.a1
DATE: 03/25/2011
DATE: March 25, 2011
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03616
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 June 1, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline
2
E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January
11, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following
discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant was born in Afghanistan
and speaks two Afghan dialects.  He experienced a period of political imprisonment after which he
left Afghanistan, eventually settling in the U.S.  He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the early
1990s.    
Applicant has numerous siblings, all born in Afghanistan. Three of them are both citizens
and residents of Afghanistan.  One is a citizen of a European country who resides in Afghanistan.
He has sent this sibling $200 every couple of months to assist in family support.  For the past two
or three years, he has sent $600 to one of his cousins.  He and his siblings inherited an interest in the
family home in Afghanistan.  One of the siblings lives in it.  He has no other financial interests in
that country and has expressed no interest in obtaining his $10,000 share of the inheritance.  
Applicant has a primary and secondary mortgage on his home in the U.S.  He fell behind in
his payments due to loss of employment.  Although he has finalized a loan modification for the first
mortgage, he is delinquent by $6,000 for the second.  The lender has placed a lien on the property.
This debt is the basis for the sole allegation under Guideline F.
  
During previous employment, Applicant was deployed to Afghanistan.  This was his first
visit to the country since leaving it twenty years before.  While there, he left base to return a car that
he had rented for another colleague who had returned to the U.S.  Upon returning to base, his
employment was immediately terminated, because Applicant did not receive prior authorization for
the trip.  Applicant was aware of the requirement for authorization, but he did not take it seriously.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge made errors in her findings.  For example, he states that
he has no firm obligation to send money to his Afghani relatives and that some of his siblings are
step-siblings.  The Judge’s findings are consistent with Applicant’s admissions to the SOR.
Moreover, after reviewing the record, we conclude 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 has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the
case.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern
3
are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11735 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2010).
In support of his appeal, Applicant has submitted new evidence, in the form of a document
that purports to show forgiveness of the debt alleged in the SOR.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the
Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2010).  However, even
if we did, under the facts of this case the decision would remain the same.  To the extent that the
offered document shows that the Judge’s findings contain an error, the error is harmless.
The record supports a conclusion 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: Jean E. Smallin                   
Jean E. Smallin
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