KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Hearing Office decisions are binding neither or other Hearing Office Judges nor on the
Appeal Board.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 10-02660.a1
DATE: 06/06/2011
DATE: June 6, 2011
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-02660
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James S. DelSordo, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 22, 2010, 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 March 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E.
Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a language instructor
working for a Defense contractor.  He is married and has one child.
Applicant was born in Iran, though he is a member of an ethnic minority.  He has been
arrested and jailed for political reasons by the Iranian government.  He fled Iran and lived in two
other countries before immigrating to the U.S. in 1998.
Applicant’s wife is a legal resident of the U.S.  She is a citizen of another country and will
apply for U.S. citizenship as soon as she is eligible to do so.  Applicant’s parents and siblings are
residents and citizens of Iran.  None work for the government there, though some family members
have been arrested or have been pressured by the government.  Applicant exchanges telephone calls
with his relatives about every two months.  
The Judge took administrative notice, among other things, of the following: Iran and the U.S.
have not had diplomatic relations since 1979.  The President has declared a state of National
Emergency regarding Iran, because it poses “an extraordinary threat” to U.S. security.  Iran engages
in clandestine efforts to obtain U.S. military equipment and other sensitive technology.  It sponsors
international terrorism, and it supports parties that have engaged in sectarian violence in Iraq.  
In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge noted that Applicant’s Iranian family
belongs to an ethnic minority and that members of that family have been targeted in the past by the
government.  He noted that, under the circumstances, “pressure could . . . be brought to bear on
[Applicant’s] family, with whom he maintains a genuine bond,” in an effort to coerce Applicant to
reveal classified or sensitive information.  Decision at 11.  Accordingly, the Judge concluded that
Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns arising from his family contacts in Iran.
Applicant has cited two cases by Hearing Office Judges which, he contends, are factually
similar to his and in which the Judges granted the applicants a clearance.  We give due consideration
to these cases.  However, each case must be decided upon its own merits.  Directive, Enclosure 2
¶ 2(b).  Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the
Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-09236 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2010).  The cases cited by
Applicant actually contain significant differences from his own.   These cases do not demonstrate
that the Judge erred in his adverse determination.    
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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple          
Michael D. Hipple
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