1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-09329
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was born and raised in Afghanistan. He briefly went to Pakistan as a
refugee, then became a U.S. resident. His mother, four siblings, and mother-in-law are
resident citizens of Afghanistan. He and his siblings inherited the family farm there. He
failed to mitigate resulting security concerns. A short sale resolved his mortgage default.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on June 25, 2011,
and an updated SF 86 on September 15, 2011. On August 16, 2012, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detai ling security concerns
under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), and F (Financial Considerations). 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 Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information effective within the Department of Defense on
September 1, 2006. 
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 6-7, 51-53.1
AR.  Each answer included an explanation.  His denial of ¶ 1.b was partial in that only one of two brothers 2
who are still Afghan citizens resides there. The other is now a permanent U.S. resident.  His third surviving
brother is a naturalized U.S. citizen and resides here. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on August 30, 2012, and initially
requested a decision without a hearing due to his pending return to Afghanistan for
work. After discussing the possibility of an expedited hearing with Department Counsel
on September 12, 2012, Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge
and waived his right to 15 days of notice prior to the hearing. Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed that same day, and the case was assigned to me on September
13, 2012. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on September 17, 2012, and I convened
the hearing, as scheduled, on September 25, 2012. Department Counsel participated in
the hearing via video teleconference. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through
10, which were admitted without objection. The Government also offered hearing exhibit
(HE) I, and administrative notice documents in support of that request that I take
administrative notice of the facts contained therein concerning Afghanistan. Applicant
had no objection to the request for administrative notice of the facts set forth in HE I,
and I granted the request. Applicant offered exhibits (AE) A through F, which were
admitted subject to review and possible objection by Department Counsel, and
Applicant testified on his own behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave the record
open until October 2, 2012, to permit submission of additional evidence and the address
in Afghanistan to which he desired that the transcript and decision be mailed. On
September 26, 2012, Applicant submitted that information, which was marked AE G,
and AE H. After reviewing all of Applicant’s exhibits, Department Counsel had no
objection to their admission into evidence and they were admitted. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 5, 2012, and the record closed.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he has
worked as an interpreter assisting U.S. forces in Afghanistan for more than a year. He
has never held a security clearance and has no mili tary service. He completed high
school in Afghanistan and earned a bachelor’s degree from a large state university in
1990. He is married, since 2002, and has two children ages 8 and 3. Applicant and his
wife are naturalized U.S. citizens, and his children were born here.  In his response to1
the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c through 1.g. He
denied those in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 2.a.  Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in the2
following findings.
Applicant was born and raised in Afghanistan. His father, who passed away in
1995, was a farmer and teacher. His mother did not work outside their home. Applicant
went to Pakistan, as a refugee from the Russian invasion in late 1980. In 1981 his older
brother sponsored him to immigrate to the United States, where he sought to achieve a
better life and a university education. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in
September 1994. He did not become a citizen when he first became eligible because he
GE 1; GE 3; GE 5.3
AR; GE 2; GE 3; GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 60-63, 68-70.4
AR; GE 3; GE 5; Tr. 63-66.5
GE 1; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 57-59.6
3
intended to return to Afghanistan after he completed his U.S. college education and the
war there ended. When he realized that the war was not going to end, he decided to live
the rest of his life in the United States and pursued citizenship. In describing his feelings
for Afghanistan, he said that he left with hard feelings toward the communist regime that
made him leave against his will. He loves Afghanistan, and has family living there that
he still cares about, but has begun a new life in, and intends to stay in the United
States.  3
Applicant’s mother, who is in her late 70's or older, lives with one of his brothers
and his sister-in-law on the farm in Afghanistan that Applicant’s father left to his children
upon his death. Applicant was unable to accurately estimate the value of this property,
but thought it was worth about $25,000. Applicant also has three older sisters who are
resident citizens of Afghanistan. None of them worked outside their homes. One is a
widow and the other two are married to retired educators. Until he began working with
the U.S. military as an interpreter in September 2011, he had sporadic contact with
these family members. Applicant traveled to Pakistan and/or Afghanistan to visit family
and relatives for periods lasting from two weeks to three months in 1994, 1998, 2002,
2003, 2007, and 2011. He did not contact them while working in Afghanistan, except for
his eldest sister, with whom he has always had a special and very close relationship.4
Applicant’s wife’s mother, two brothers, and three sisters are resident citizens of
Afghanistan. Her brothers are radiologists who work in a local clinics and her sisters are
homemakers. Applicant has little to no contact with his wife’s family, but she regularly
contacts them.5
During the last 12 years, Applicant worked as a computer software/hardware
engineer or technician with a few periods of unemployment. Due to a corporate
reorganization, he was laid off in April 2010, after working for five years in his most
recent job in that field. Unable to find another job in the United States, he went to
Afghanistan in late February 2011 to visit his family and look for work there. He
contacted numerous IT and telecommunication companies in Afghanistan seeking
employment, but after a month he was unsuccessful in obtaining a job. He then returned
to the United States, learned about his current position from a friend of his wife, and
decided to apply for work as a linguist.  6
Applicant and his wife rented their home until April 2007, when they bought a
house with a first mortgage of about $220,000 and a monthly payment of $1,487. In
order to benefit from a better school district and a nicer house, they moved into and
rented Applicant’s brother’s home in June 2009. They rented their house to tenants at a
AR; AE G; AE H; Tr. 71-79.7
AE A through AE F.8
Tr. 82-83.9
4
net loss of about $400 per month after expenses. Their tenants moved out and they
made their last mortgage payment on the house in February 2010, after which the
mortgage went into default. As noted above, Applicant was laid off in Apri l 2010, after
which he had no income from which to make mortgage payments. In December 2011,
Applicant was able to complete an approved short sale on the property. The mortgage
creditor issued Applicant and his wife IRS Form 1099-C’s reporting cancellation of their
remaining deficiency debt of $63,017 on the mortgage loan. This debt is fully resolved.7
The non-commissioned officer in charge for whom Applicant worked as a linguist
and cultural advisor in Afghanistan wrote a letter describing Applicant’s outstanding
performance, loyal dedication to mission accomplishment, and excellent character. His
Regional Support Manager also provided a letter describing his superior performance
and self-sacrifice. Four other colleagues and friends, who have known him for many
years, also wrote letters describing his good character, responsibility, and loyalty to the
United States.  His service in Afghanistan was primarily performed on U.S. bases,8
although he also went on several missions in the field. While never under direct attack,
he was present in a battlefield area on a couple occasions.  9
I took administrative notice of the facts set forth in HE I concerning the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, which are incorporated herein by reference. Of particular
significance are the poor human rights situation; endemic corruption; and the active and
hostile presence of Al Qaida, Taliban, and other extremist groups that generate
instability and openly attack police and military forces of the government, as well as
U.S. forces, persons, and interests.   
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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.
5
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 the 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, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding foreign influence:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern i f 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 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. The SOR allegations and substantial evidence in this case potentially
established four DCs under this guideline: 
6
(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; and
(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 or technology and the individual’s desire to
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign
inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion; and 
(e) a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign
country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which
could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or
exploitation. 
Afghanistan has significant internal anti-western militant and terrorism threats
that operate contrary to U.S. interests. Accordingly, family and property connections
there have significant potential to generate heightened risk of foreign exploitation,
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion under AG ¶¶ 7(a), (d), and (e), than
would similar connections in many other countries.
Applicant’s mother and favorite older sister, with whom he maintains regular
communication and close familial relationships, are resident citizens of Afghanistan. He
has lesser, but still significant, relationships with his brother, two other sisters, two
brothers-in-law, and sister-in-law who are also resident citizens there. He and his
surviving siblings inherited ownership of the family farm on which they were raised, and
where his mother and one brother’s family still live. I find that, regardless of Applicant’s
imprecise valuation of this property, it is of significant importance to him as his family
home. Applicant shares living quarters with his wife, whose mother and many siblings
are also resident Afghan citizens. He has an entirely legitimate, serious interest in the
welfare of her family members, as well as his own family in Afghanistan.
These facts meet the Government’s burden of production by raising all four of the
aforementioned disqualifying conditions. Applicant’s contacts, relationships, and
connections with Afghanistan through his relatives residing there shift a heavy burden to
him to prove mitigation under applicable Appeal Board precedent. 
AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Those with
potential application in mitigating AG ¶¶ 7 (a), (b), (d), and (e) security concerns are:
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in
which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those
7
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the
U.S.;
(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;
(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; and
(f) the value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property
interest is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be
used to effectively influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.
Considered in light of the substantial anti-western terrorism threat and impending
departure of most NATO military forces from the region, Applicant did not demonstrate
that it is unlikely he could be placed in a position of having to choose between the
interests of a foreign individual or government and those of the U.S. due to his family
ties there. As recently as March 2011, he was actively seeking local employment as a
computer engineer in Afghanistan, where he has close family ties. He has close
relationships with, and a strong interest in protecting his mother, brother and sisters,
and his wife’s family who are residents and citizens there. His communication and
contact with his Afghani family members since he came to the U.S. are neither casual
nor infrequent. Accordingly, he failed to establish the mitigating conditions set forth in
AG ¶¶ 8(a) and (c).
The evidence also fai ls to establish significant mitigation under AG ¶ 8(b).
Applicant has no substantial assets in the United States, having lost the house he
purchased in 2007 through a short sale. After a substantial period of unemployment and
his failure to obtain a job in Afghanistan, he finally obtained employment and served
effectively as a contract linguist/cultural advisor supporting U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
He did not establish that he sought or accepted that lucrative employment for reasons,
or endured life-threatening conditions, which would sufficiently demonstrate deep or
longstanding U.S. relationships or loyalties under applicable Appeal Board precedent.
Finally, regardless of the uncertain monetary value of Applicant’s interest in his family’s
farm in Afghanistan, it is his only property and the family home where his mother still
lives. Accordingly, it retains the potential to support a conflict of interest and could be
used for manipulation or pressure. AG ¶ 8(f) does not apply.
8
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The record evidence raised potential security concerns under two Guideline F
DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
In April 2007, Applicant obtained a mortgage loan to purchase a house. He
stopped making the required payments toward this loan in February 2010, according to
the record credit reports. This evidence shifted the burden to Applicant to rebut,
extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(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
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
9
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant was able to arrange a short-sale of the home in question that closed in
December 2011. The lender forgave the remaining deficiency debt of $63,017. There is
no evidence of any other financial irresponsibility. Accordingly, this incident was a one-
time financial problem, precipitated by the unforeseeable subsequent collapse of the
real estate market, which Applicant responsibly acted to resolve. Applicant fully
mitigated Guideline F security concerns with evidence establishing AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), (c),
and (d).  
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 relevant 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
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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s conduct is not in
question here. He is a mature and experienced individual, who has acted responsibly
and provided valuable service to U.S. military forces deployed in combat. However, the
inherent potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress from the presence of
Applicant’s and his wife’s family members and property in Afghanistan remains
unmitigated. Placing Applicant in a position wherein it is foreseeable that he could be
forced to choose between the security interests of the United States and the interests of
his or his wife’s family is the harm to be avoided under the President’s guidelines and
Appeal Board precedent. Applicant failed to show that such potential is diminished to
any reasonable extent. His loyal and dedicated service in support of American military
units in Afghanistan is highly commendable, but does not justify placing him or his
relatives at risk of exploitation due to his access to classified information. 
10
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He failed to meet his burden to mitigate
the security concerns arising from foreign influence considerations.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant (in part)
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge