KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant has a brother-in-law living in a country hostile to the U.S. and another on
living in a country with an adversarial relationship with the U.S.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-08099.a1
DATE: 09/14/2012
DATE: September 14, 2012
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-08099
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Paula W. Phinney, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 18, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On June 28, 2012, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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 failed to consider all of
the relevant evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse 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 was born in Afghanistan,
immigrating to the U.S. in the early 2000s.  He became a U.S. citizen in the late 2000s, and he holds
a U.S. passport.  His wife was born in Afghanistan and became a naturalized U.S. citizen the same
year as her husband.  Applicant’s parents are citizens and residents of Afghanistan.  He has three
siblings who became U.S. citizens in the late 2000s.  His parents-in-law are citizens of Afghanistan
who live in the U.S.  
Applicant has a brother-in-law who lives in a country that is hostile to the U.S.  He works
for a state-run organization there.  Applicant communicates with this relative more than 15 times
a year by e-mail.  He has another brother-in-law who lives in a country with an adversarial
relationship with the U.S.  Applicant communicates with this relative 8 to 15 times a year by e-mail.
In addition, Applicant speaks with both on the telephone monthly. 
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance.  He earned
numerous certificates of appreciation for his service to the U.S.  His co-workers find him to be
highly competent and trustworthy. 
Afghanistan is a nation rife with corruption and has human rights issues.  The Taliban
finances its operations through criminal networks and narcotics cultivation.  
In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s connection with the brother-in-law
who lives in the hostile country could place Applicant in a position of having to choose between his
relationship with his in-law and the interests of the United States.  He also concluded that Applicant
could be confronted with a conflict of interest arising from his parents living in a country,
Afghanistan, that has a “tenuous” security situation.  Decision at 6-7.  The Judge noted a paucity of
record evidence concerning Applicant’s assets in the U.S., and he concluded that Applicant’s ties
to the U.S. are not deep when compared with his ties to his foreign relatives.  He also concluded that
“it is not clearly evident . . . that [Applicant] will resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the
United States.”  Id.  The Judge noted Applicant’s favorable character references, and he stated that
Applicant has had no security breaches during his service.  However, the Judge concluded that these
favorable matters do not outweigh security concerns arising from Applicant’s foreign relatives.
The presence of terrorist activity in a foreign country is a significant factor in Guideline B
cases.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the
immediate family members of his or her spouse.  An applicant with family members in a country
3
that is hostile to the U.S. bears a “very heavy burden” to show that the relatives are not a means of
coercion or exploitation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-09986 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 15, 2011).
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider, or did not properly weigh, evidence
favorable to Applicant, concerning, for example, his good work performance and his service to the
U.S. overseas.  He also draws attention to his clean disciplinary record.  These are matters which
the Judge was bound to consider, along with all the other evidence in the record.  As stated above,
the Judge made findings about the evidence which Applicant has cited and discussed that evidence
in the Analysis.  Applicant has not  rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
record evidence.  Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in an improper
manner.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-00281 at 3-4, (App. Bd. Nov. 25, 2011).    
Applicant cites to other Hearing Office cases which, he argues, support his effort to be
awarded a security clearance.  We give these cases due consideration.  However, Hearing Office
decisions, as Applicant himself notes, are not binding on other Hearing Office Judge or on the
Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-05738 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 26, 2012).  Furthermore,
Applicant has cited to evidence from outside the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  
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 Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
4
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board