1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-09480
       )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr. Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concern, but failed to mitigate
the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On November 10, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline B, Foreign Influence. DOHA acted
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 adjudicative guidelines (AG).
Applicant answered the SOR on March 6, 2012. He admitted subparagraphs 1.d
through 1.g, 1.j, 1.k, 1.n, 1.q., 1.s, 1.u, and all of the allegations in Paragraph 2. He
denied subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c, 1.h., 1.i, 1.l, 1.m, 1.o, 1.p, 1.r, and 1.t. He
2
requested an administrative determination instead of a hearing. On May 3, 2012,
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant received it
on May 4, 2010, and filed a response on October 1, 2012. The case was assigned to
me on October 24, 2012. 
Preliminary Ruling
At Department Counsel’s request, I am taking administrative notice of the facts
encapsulated within seven documents marked as Court’s Exhibit’s (CE) I to VII.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 41-year-old married man with three children, ages nine, eight, and
four. Applicant has a high school education. (Item 6 at 15) He was born and raised in
Afghanistan, immigrating to the United States in 2003. He became a naturalized U.S.
citizen in 2009. Since October 2009, Applicant has worked as a contract linguist and
cultural advisor in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Applicant is highly regarded on the job. According to an officer with whom
Applicant works, he completed the same rigorous mountain warfare training as his U.S.
Marine counterparts before being deployed. Once in Afghanistan, he “went on daily
combat missions, taking the same risks as his Marine brothers.” When in the field, he
often used his cultural background to defuse tensions between Afghan nationals and
the U.S. troops. When he was not on patrol, he assisted officers with translations during
staff planning sessions. (Item 4 at 6) According to another operations officer, Applicant’s
“easy-going demeanor, strong work ethic, and charismatic personality made him a force
multiplier when working with Afghan nationals.” (Item 4 at 5)
In April 2011, Applicant was awarded a certificate of appreciation. He was
credited with, among other things, using his excellent translation skills to help
synchronize combat operations between U.S. and Afghan military personnel. (Item 4 at
4)
Applicant’s parents are deceased. He has four sisters and one brother. His
brother lives in Germany and his oldest sister lives in Australia. His remaining sisters
live in Afghanistan. Two of his sisters are teachers and one works in transportation. The
record contains no information elaborating further about the type of transportation
services she provides. Another brother disappeared in 1975, and his whereabouts
remain unknown. (Item 6 at 34-36; Item 7 at 1)
Applicant’s sisters living in Afghanistan are married. One brother-in-law is a taxi
driver, another is a teacher, and the third brother-in-law is self-employed. (Item 7 at 2)
Applicant’s wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen who lives with him in the United States.
Applicant’s father-in-law is deceased. It is unclear from the record whether Applicant’s
mother-in-law is alive. As of the date Applicant completed the security clearance
3
application, she was alive and living in Afghanistan. However, she is not listed as one of
the relatives that generates a security concern on the SOR. 
Applicant has not seen any of his relatives living in Afghanistan for more than 12
years. (Item 8 at 3) They talk once or twice per year.
The United States has more combat troops deployed to Afghanistan than to any
other foreign country. This extraordinary commitment to Afghanistan is balanced against
the inherent dangers of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan to citizens and residents of
Afghanistan. (CE I at 13)
Afghanistan has serious problems including a corrupt government, human rights
abuse, and terrorism. (CE VII at 54) Although the effectiveness and capacity of the
insurgency in Afghanistan has been downgraded, the security situation in parts of
Afghanistan remains volatile. (CE VII at 1) It is unsafe to travel anywhere in
Afghanistan. (CE VII at 1)
After immigrating to the United States in 2003, Applicant worked part-time for an
auto repair shop. From April 2004 to September 2007, he worked full-time delivering
pizza, and from October 2007 to October 2009, he worked full-time as a bus driver.
(Item 6 at 19-20)
In January 2000, Applicant purchased a house for $400,000. Over the next five
years, he accrued approximately $64,000 of delinquent debt, mostly consisting of credit
cards that he used to pay for gas, groceries, and bills. (Item 8 at 4)
Between 2007 and 2012, Applicant fell behind on his mortgage payments. Since
the date of the SOR, Applicant has lost his home to foreclosure. It is unknown from the
record whether Applicant owes a deficiency from the foreclosure. According to
Applicant, “the bank never gave [him] a second chance to improve [his] financial
situation.” (Item 2 at 5)
In February 2012, Applicant retained a debt consolidation company who helped
him develop a payment plan. Approximately $31,000 of debt owed to the creditors listed
in subparagraphs 1.d through 1.g, 1.j, 1.k., 1.n, 1.q, 1.s, and 1.u, is included in the plan.
To date, Applicant has satisfied the creditors listed in subparagraphs 1.e, 1.j, and 1.s.
Also, he satisfied subparagraph 1.r, a debt not included in the payment plan in the
amount of $300, and a debt not listed in the SOR in the amount of $727,  (Response at
1, 9) In sum, Applicant has satisfied delinquent debts totalling $7,000, and intends to
complete the payment plan by 2015. Applicant offered no documentary evidence
supporting his contention that the remaining $33,000 of debt alleged in the SOR, which
he denied, was not his responsibility.
4
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 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. 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 for obtaining a favorable security decision. 
Analysis
Guideline B: Foreign Influence
Under this guideline, “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 the U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest.”
(AG ¶ 6) Moreover, “adjudication under this 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.” (Id.) A “current and accurate assessment of the
‘geopolitical situation’ and the security/intelligence profile of the [foreign] country vis-a-
vis the United States is crucial in Guideline B cases.” (ISCR Case No. 07-05686 at 4,
footnote 3 (App. Bd. November 12, 2008)) 
Applicant’s contacts with several relatives living in Afghanistan, a chaotic and
dangerous country with terrorists and insurgents that are brutalizing the population and
engaging in combat with U.S. troops triggers the application of 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 immigrated to the United States less than ten years ago, and has only
been a naturalized U.S. citizen for approximately three years. There is little record
evidence of his interpersonal relationships within the U.S. to compare to his
ISCR Case No. 04-02511 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar 20, 2007).1
5
relationships in Afghanistan. However,  Applicant is a translator and cultural advisor who
for several years has worked alongside U.S. troops in dangerous combat operations.
Also, he has used his translation skills to mediate sometimes tense exchanges with
Afghan civilians. In doing so, he exposed himself to the same risks as the troops. Given
his proven history of services for the United States under these circumstances,  AG ¶1
8(b) applies:
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 United States, that the individual can be expected to
resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest.
Applicant has not seen any of his Afghan relatives in more than 12 years. His
contact with them is limited to phone calls twice per year. Consequently, AG ¶ 8(c),
“contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is
little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation,” is also
applicable. Applicant has mitigated the Guideline B security concerns.
Guideline F: Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about
an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information”
(AG ¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.). Applicant’s financial delinquencies
trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and
19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” The following mitigating conditions
under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
6
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
The record does not support Applicant’s contention that unemployment in 2007
contributed to the accrual of his financial delinquencies. AG ¶ 20(b) is inapplicable. 
With the help of a debt counseling agency, Applicant organized his
delinquencies, negotiated settlements and began paying them. To date, he has satisfied
approximately $7,000 of delinquent debt, including subparagraphs 1.e, 1.j, 1.r and 1.s,
which he has resolved entirely. I resolve these subparagraphs in his favor. Also, the
amount of debt Applicant has satisfied is sufficient to trigger the application of AG ¶¶
20(c) and (d).
Applicant denied delinquencies totalling more than $33,000, and offered no
evidence of any steps taken to dispute them with the alleged creditors. Moreover, since
the issuance of the SOR, Applicant’s home has been foreclosed. It is unknown from the
record whether Applicant owes a deficiency from the foreclosure. AG ¶ 20(e) does not
apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant is a highly-valued translator who is risking his life in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom. Although his relationship with his relatives in Afghanistan
generates a heightened risk, his service as a translator and lack of contact with his
relatives in Afghanistan mitigate the foreign influence security risk.
Applicants financial problems, however, are more problematic. He denied
multiple SOR debts totalling more than $33,000 and offered no evidence of the basis of
his denials. Moreover, I remain troubled by the recent foreclosure of his home. Under
these circumstances, the progress made in reducing the acknowledged debts is not
sufficient to overcome the negative security ramifications of the debts that he denied
without explanation and the recent foreclosure.
 
7
 Upon considering this case in light of the whole-person concept, I conclude
Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concern raised by his financial problems.
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f - 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.k - 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.r - 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.t - 1.u: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge